Brand bothering, and how it can help...

Yes, it can begin this early.

Hi all.

I tend, these days, to post just job or internship opportunities. When AdGrads was first formed, we tried to write more useful posts about how best to get into the business, but in recent years, it's been a bit job-specific.

So, with that in mind, I've decided to write a post on the topic of personal branding and how to make yourself stand out from the crowd.

With the rise of potential employers googling your name (and some of the more locked down searching Facebook), personal branding is something of a hot topic, and has been for the past few years...particularly when you're considering a career in communications, where opinions on branding (and indeed, people who like making themselves heard) are ten-a-penny.

My stock advice used to be 'start a blog, express your opinions' (particularly for those who wanted to get into planning). Now, given that most communications students/new ad folk have blogs or twitter accounts, the grad market is overrun with opinions.

Not a problem, you might claim; my opinion is good enough to get me a job/get me noticed. Well, I'd claim that it probably isn't enough any more. No, in order to truly stand out, you should try and cultivate a wealth of pre-job examples of where you've personally made a difference by improving/changing/helping someone with their communications.

Think about it - was there a local band you helped promote? Have you done something in social media? Created a character/persona who is widely followed? What did you learn? How could this experience help the businesses you're thinking of joining?

Or, for more specific job roles - have you proven how well organised you are when putting on a play at University? (This looks good for an account management role). Have you taken part in the 'Account Planning School of the Web'? (It's open to anyone, but it's good practice/a viable way of improving your strategic chops).

There are people in Advertising/Comms who have done some of these, and many of those things discussed above are the sorts of things that require the same skills to tackle situations they have to deal with daily.

Don't just talk about how important it is to be aware of digital and communicate well - live it, point to it before you interview and demonstrate your skills.

You've got a blank canvas out there to impress the industry. Who knows - if you do a good enough job, you may just get onto Brand Republic and secure that first graduate role without ever having to go on a grad scheme.

More on interviews...

It all looks a bit Orwellian, no? Scary stuff.

Hello again.

Sorry for the long radio silence. Work has been a tad busy in the last few weeks (which is poor timing, considering we're right in the heart of grad interview/recruitment season).

Anyway, I noted there've been a fair number of questions on the topic of second round interviews, and the formats in general.

In terms of the first round format, it's pretty straightforward, typically (which is always nice). There will typically be an interview with account handling and planning. Sometimes, it's broken into two - so you have the account handler ask you the more practical questions, and the planner talk about the theoretical, but it's almost always a variation on this theme.

To the first of the questions in the last post's comments - the sort of questions an account handler might ask, v.s. a planner. Typically, a lot of agencies have a good cop/bad cop approach, and it's USUALLY (though your mileage may vary) the account handler as the bad guy and the planner as the nice chap. I have had this be different. The account handler will ask you about why you think you're relevant for advertising, what you'd do in a series of hypothetical situations...those sorts of more robust, practical notions (yes, even teamwork questions on occasion, given the job)

Basically, he/she is thinking about whether you can get shit done. The planner will tend to focus on what you think the thinking is behind a series of ads/whether you know the difference between an execution/campaign, and what you think makes a good one and why. They may even talk about ad theory/what's going on in the business today, and you should be prepared for that.

In terms of a video interview, I have to say, I've never ever had one (have any readers?), but I think on video (based on a fair few tele-conferences I've had), it's even more critical to be clear, succinct and to the point. You lose out with people not being able to note your body language so easily - so preparation is perhaps even more key.

When it comes to JWT, they have a very clearly defined mission and strategic approach. Explore the writings of Steven King, have a point of view on good global campaigns, and I would imagine (with a healthy nose at the key people at the organisation and their twitter/sites/the main site), you'll be in good shape. I wouldn't like to guess at the culture, because I've never worked there. If anyone from JWT is reading this, feel free to chime in.

Finally, in terms of two separate interviews - yes, there is typically some overlap, but given it'll probably be two different types of people, with two different job roles interviewing you, so naturally, even if the questions are similar, they'll be looking for slightly different things. Think about a planner - they are absorbed by the theoretical, and how it can live in the real world. They'll naturally tolerate more theoretical musings than an account handler, who has to make sure shit gets done. So don't be surprised if you come away from any ad/comms interview thinking that you made a better impression on one than the other.

I hope that little lot's helpful. There are a few more agency grad schemes that I've forgotten, and will put up shortly.

Edelman need a junior planner...

There won't be lines. Promise.

Hello there.

This is kind of an odd posting. Edelman, the company I work for, are after a Junior Planner.

Now, it's an odd one for me, because the person who gets the job will be working with me, as we're a tiddly department. I will have to *gulp* train and look after them.

So, naturally, we'd like to find someone who is so sharp and so laterally minded that they scare me on a daily basis. We're after a graduate; no prior planning experience is required, but those who can prove to us that they can think laterally/have heard of the internet/have a point of view about brands and why they're important will be crucial.

The Junior Planner's job does involve a lot of research; some of it will be bespoke, random stuff, and other bits will be more prosiac. (How many people eat margarine in the UK, for example).

There's a helluva lot more detail here. The deadline's the 30th of June. Best of luck.

The Great Lottery...

A possibility.

Quite a few of you will already have had, or will be beginning to have, second round interviews. Congratulations are in order. You're past the first round stage, which is a massive achievement in itself.

And I thought it'd be a good idea to write some second round tips and tricks, whilst underlining the most important thing to take away from the whole experience.

The most important (and honest) thing to say is that it's all a bit of a lottery, really. If you've gotten this far, you'll be good enough to work in this business. You have the qualifications to prosper, you undoubtedly write well, and know what you're talking about. But the second round is ultimately like preparing for an exam. You prepare for ages, try to second guess what you'll be asked to do, but it comes down to on the day. You can think you've done incredibly well and still not get through.

Depressing? Perhaps, but it's not meant to be. You're in a situation which has many chaos elements, and i'll outline them. These points should hopefully help.

1) Other Candidates

You're surrounded by the sort of people who only have two things in common with you. Firstly, that they want a career in advertising (for the most part - some are dabbling), and secondly, that they impressed your interviewers well enough to be there. But they won't be the same as you. Oh no. Some will be loud. Some will be quiet. Many will have done vastly different degrees and have had very different experiences. I remember one of my second round interviews; one of the blokes there was a very promising acoustic guitarist, and preceded to sing a song half way through the day. Never found out if he got through.

But again, don't worry about it. What you can learn from the other candidates is a little about the sort of people the agency is looking for. Do you think everyone else in the room is a bit of a ball-breaker? Well, that might tell you a little bit about the agency's culture. Maybe they like the sort of people who'd sell their own grandmothers to make an ad. Or, are they all the sort of people who've taken up knitting at 22? Again, it'll help you learn what the agency wants. And this is useful when trying to understand whether you'd fit in - because, God knows, this is just as much about you as it is the place. There's nothing worse than forcing yourself to like a place and hating it from the outset.

2) The Tasks

Hopefully, this won't be like The Apprentice. But if it is, don't panic; again, it tells you something about the sort of place you might work at. I remember being asked at one agency to try and make something (out of selected materials) to stop an egg from smashing. Wacky, a bit mad, but interesting.

Now, this might seem very trivial, much like some of the more spurious and odd questions you were asked in round one. And it can piss some people off. I mean, who gives a flying fuck about keeping an egg alive? Well, there are two points to this. One is the crux of the matter - there's always a question behind this sort of thing. Why, in God's name, would you be asked about something like that? It's really to see how you react and how you think. It's a lateral thinking exercise; only in this instance, you're in a room full of people who're keeping an eye on you, and assessing your response and how you work with others.

Throwing your arms up in the arm and saying 'it's fucked', while possibly the correct response if this was an everyday situation, won't endear you to your team or the people having a look at you. That said, being entirely po-faced about the situation isn't realistic either. Having a chuckle and a laugh with the people who're in your team is the right sort of response. The second (but no less important) point is that you get asked all sorts of strange things in advertising. Things that make you wonder why you need a degree to have gotten onto the grad scheme, that your client is potentially nuts, and that bond you and your team together. That's just advertising, and the second round tasks are the start of realising that.

3) The Presentation

I'm not going to go as far as saying 'it's like a pitch', because you usually have something ressembling a series of facts to go from in a pitch. But, it is just as much a 'on the day' thing as a pitch. That really confident, brassy Brummie girl, who claimed to love presenting? Her freezing on the spot might happen, and often does. That quiet Swedish bloke? He'll come up with the goods when it looked like a stiff breeze might blow him over.

Don't rely, or expect the presentation to go as planned. Also, those people who 'win' the presentation don't always get jobs. It'll be a combination of how you work with your team, and what you've contributed to the whole day. There won't be one moment where you think you've suddenly cracked it. You never truly know. You can have an idea of just what the individual judges are after (based on their job role - the planner will be interested in the sort of insights you've come up with, the account handler will want to know how you promise to deliver it, and how it'll work moving forward), but there's always room for someone to charm the room with a captivating presentation.

4) Your Judges

Already alluded to in point three, the people popping in to see you are a funny bunch. You can't really second guess them. Is asking for help, or for their opinion a good thing? Do they expect you to be self-sufficient? (Well, in truth, nobody expects you to do it on your own, so don't be afraid to ask them what they think).

And that friendly planner who's been giving you advice all day? He may just turn into an absolute bastard when assessing your presentation, just to see how you react. And what of agency management, who (if my experiences are reliable) swan in towards the end of the day - not having been able to give up the whole day - and decide just who they like during the presentations? What's worse...they have the ability to overrule people who have spent the whole day with you. The best won't, mind.

How the whole bunch are with you will give you an insight into that mysterious thing, 'agency culture' too. No matter how friendly, shiny or spangly the website or rumour about them in Campaign might seem, this is where you begin to have an idea about them. Would you, in truth, like to work for them? Respect is key in this situation. Sure, you want a job in advertising; you don't want to work for a bunch of fuckwits who mistreat you and have egos the size of small planets. Don't go in with those kind of preconceptions. People are those who make agencies - they may once, for example, have been a great agency, but the people you meet on the day are those partially responsible for improving it and winning business. Do you trust them to help train you and make you better?

Some Final Words...

If rumour is to be believed, Sorrell, Bullmore and Steel (the owner, ex-JWT ECD/Chairman and WPP special consultant and the man who runs the WPP Fellowship) were all rejected by JWT on their graduate recruitment scheme. One now owns the entire network, the other was Chairman, the last is still called upon by JWT to help with pitches.

Personally, I was rejected by Lowe when I applied for a graduate job with them in 2005. I've just finished two happy years there. Being rejected from the graduate scheme doesn't mean you can never work in a place, or ever work in advertising. Sure, it's hard to take when you're used to achieving academically - but that's real life, i'm afraid. Keep trying, and you'll get in. Grad schemes aren't always the way in. Getting in is by far the hardest thing to do though.

If you're one of the lucky few who got through; congratulations. It'll be a helluva ride.

For Creative Types...

Nice. Damn nice.

One more thing to tell you about; it concerns the creative fraternity.

YouthNet is a youth charity and online community set up to provide 16 to 24-year-olds with support and trusted guidance through award-winning website www.TheSite.org. They are running an open brief to improve their presence on and offline.

And this is where you come in, creative types. You get a few hours with the brief on Friday 25th (from 3pm-6pm). It takes place in Shoreditch Town Hall. Agencies can enter, I think, as there may be real life spangly work at the end of it.

More details here. Best of luck..

Keep Your Innocence And Act Plainly...

This is you. Before your mum gets shot. Photo via Free Of The Demons. Usual rules..

Recently, I had a very interesting chat with a planning friend of mine about planning development.

Unlike most roles, planning doesn't really have defined job titles for each level - you don't go from exec, to manager to director to whatever it is. No no, you are a planner for most of your days. This obviously means that decisions made on your salary and your position are partly made on how long you've been in the business, and what you've achieved (ie, whether you've been involved in pitch wins, whether you've won the odd APG or IPA Effectiveness award).

And it was when we were talking about this that he mentioned something interesting about more junior planners. About how, until you are about two years into planning, you have a glorious naivety which means you can sometimes have the midas touch, before you get a bit more bogged down with the 'right' way to do things.

It's rather like the analogy Scamp was drawing with creatives being like children. Whilst there are positives and negatives to take from this (I personally think it was just trying to say creatives need to have 'innocent eyes' before tackling most problems, which is no bad thing), I do think something similar happens with baby planners.

The chat went on - apparently, between two and say six, you are still formulating your 'voice', and prone to anxiety as you can't be quite so innocent as before, as half theories can't just be dismissed with a hearty 'aaah, he/she/it is a junior'.

Now, this interests me, because I am a two year old planner - and I do look around, and wonder what I'm missing out going forward. Should I be more data driven? Are groups the answer? Should the creatives be involved upstream, downstream or should the boat be overturned? (Yes, i'm being sarcastic).

Well, reading a post that Mr Suit wrote about the importance of writing got me thinking (a dangerous thing) about this.

If we accept that this innocence comes from not knowing any better, then surely what we should aim to do going forward (at every level) is to speak and write as plainly as possible?

I've often ranted on Wannabe Ad Man about pseudo-intellectual bollocks that planning tends to wallow in if left unchecked. Let's be clear, right from the off - when you begin in planning, you aren't writing the next great American novel, and nor are you trying to add another level to Maslow's hierarchy of human needs.

I think a lot of planners, without any job title inflation to take account of their awe-inspiring intellect, fall into this trap of assuming they 'have' to be clever when briefing, speaking, or behaving in the agency.

This is especially true of baby planners, or midweight planners realising that Bambi's mum has just been shot in front of them, and they can't make the same rash assertions as they used to. I also think that certain industry stereotypes that are put forward further this, along with bad mentoring.

It is easy to do though, given your background in University; for example - I wrote my dissertation on John Milton and Thomas Hobbes's major texts, Paradise Lost and Leviathan. Both incredibly complex, both which were attempted to be simplified; but that didn't stop me (as it was an intellectual essay) from trying to be clever and compare the two.

This absolutely, positively, categorically does NOT wash in adland. You have to be a funnel, to not confuse people - you aren't speaking or writing to a professor with 30 years of understanding a topic - you are talking to creatives who want a straightforward answer that they can use as a springboard to make great work from.

So act plainly. Speaking and presenting is just as important for you as it is for account handlers - and so is writing, presentation and generally being in the agency. How will you know whether you've succeeded? Creatives will seek you out; account handlers will want to include you in every discussion. Someone who dwells in wanky, made up brand terms won't be - unless the agency in question wants to bullshit its clients on an epic scale.

Of Course You Want To Be A Suit...

Someday you'll be fitted for one of these...photo via djpepperminta. Usual rules apply.

This is a cheeky guest post from the gentleman account handler, Mr Adland Suit. I have been remiss at posting this, but thought that a Friday evening was the right time to ruminate on the mysteries of suitdom, and why it is an excellent job.

Of course, I was a rubbish, rubbish suit, but i've met a few good 'uns in my time - so it's best you hear it from the source. Without further ado, here we are...

There were a number of titles that I could have chosen for this post: "Why I Love Being A Suit", for example; "Maybe It's Because I'm A Suit..." crossed my mind; or, of course "Why Being A Suit Kicks Ass" (apparently a fair few people have started reading this in the States, which I for some reason find extremely exciting). But, as the intention is that this will be reposted over with those delightful young whippersnappers at AdGrads, I thought it better to make at least the headline fit with their target. Because, unlike the (seemingly) popular and (certainly) controversial 'Everything Is Your Fault' strand, which is, ostensibly at least, advice for Junior Suits (although contributions from everyone continue to be welcomed and encouraged), this is very much a post for all of us - for all Suits.

Because dammit, I love my job. I've mentioned this before, both in this blog and on others, but let me state it officially, and for the record now: Advertising us one hell of an industry to work in, and I firmly believe that a Suit's life is the life you want to be living within it. And that's not meant to be disrespectful in any way, oh no - every role is important in the smooth running of an Agency or Industry, and only an embittered creative* would ever suggest otherwise. But I wouldn't want to sit anywhere else on the Great Organogram Of Life. And here's just a couple of reasons why.

1. First off, and apologies if this seems a touch familiar, but everything is our fault - and that's a bloody marvellous thing. A good Suit thrives on that responsibility and the control that comes with it. It brings variety, it brings pressure and it brings excitement.

2. We get to do everything. Creatives might get to write the scripts, but they'll never get to write a brief. Planners might get to moderate groups, but they'll never get to go on a shoot (and good lord, does that bug them...). TV Producers might get to spend hours watching Directors' reels and calling it work, but they'll never (and this might hurt) run an Agency. You, dear Suit, can do all of these things - all of these things and more.

3. Lunch. Again, I may have mentioned this elsewhere, but nobody Lunches like a Suit, much as TV producers will claim otherwise.

4. When a piece of work is made, you will be able to see your fingerprints all over it: you'll remember the awkward conversations you had with the client about the product; the invigorating, enlightening and infuriating conversations with your planner about the brief; the buzz when the team was briefed; the shiver when your phone rang and it was a copy-writer who wanted to bounce a thought off you; the rock in the pit of your stomach when you first presnted the idea to that selfsame awkward client and the stand-up row you had 20 minutes later; the sunburn you got on your feet while shooting in Barcelona and the light you broke playing football in an underground carpark the same day; drawing that final line through the final frame on the shooting board; viewing an edit for the first time; you'll be the one that stands there at the front of the room and presses play when the Client seesthe fruits of their investment for the first time; and you'll be in the room when somebody walks in with a powerpoint presentation that will tell you whether you've failed or succeeded. Every element of it will be in some way yours, and that's a wonderful thing. Not to mention how proud your mum will be.

5. Everything counts as work when you're a Suit. Creatives can lap up the culture, Planners can lap up the data, Art-Buyers can lap up the galleries and TV Producers can devour the reels, but a Suit can and should be doing all of the above and more. Read anything you can get your hands on, you're working. Spend a whole day in the cinema, you're working. Read 'Eating The Big Fish', 'Ogilvy On Advertising', 'Herd' or anything else you might find in the 'Marketing' section of Waterstone's, you're working. Spend 6 months wandering round South America, you're working. Get off your face at the Camden Roundhouse, you're working. Spend 6 hours at lunch at Corrigan's, well, you probably are actually working. Knowing about everything that's going on is part of what we do, and the best way to know about what's going on is to have done it. (And then to try and expense it.)

6. Expenses. TV Producers think they know how to play a job number - to a good Suit, watching a TV Producer with a job number is like watching a chimpanzee trying to play a bassoon. There's artistry to an expenses claim, and we've got all the paints.

7. Finally, to finish with (it's getting late), a serious point. A Suit in advertising gets as good a business education as you could buy, and he or she gets paid to do it. You get involved in the intricacies of production, you get involved in contract and fee negotiations, you get to do resource planning, you'll be one of a maximum of five people in your Agency who actually knows what 'P&L', 'bottom line' and 'margins' actually are. Later on in your career, that will either come in extraordinarily useful when you're the CEO or MD of your own Agency, or when you've taken everything you've learnt and are applying it elsewhere. Nothing says 'transferable skills' like Advertising Suit.

So that's that from me - 7 random, top of my head reasons (and there are hundreds more) why this is the best job in the world, and why it's the job that if you aren't already doing, you should be dreaming of. Or if not dreaming of, then at least quite looking forward to. Hell, it's still a job.

So - what do you lot think? Why is being a Suit the best job in the world for you? Of course, it's just possible that you don't agree with me - why the hell not? Come along - that's what the comments are there for.

*The link is, of course, an affectionate joke - without that creative, I wouldn't be here.

WPP Fellowship Message from Jon Steel...

The Fellowship logo. Usual rules apply.

I've just been sent an email from Jon Steel, who very kindly wrote a Star Story for us last year, about how he got into the business.

This is more a personal reflection on the WPP Fellowship, as he's in charge of seeing the best and brightest get through. So, without further ado, here 'tis:


THE FIRST CUT IS THE DEEPEST

Reflections on a very large pile of applications

JON STEEL, WPP Fellowship Director

Last night, after five straight days of reading and re-reading applications to the WPP Fellowship, I typed the final name onto my list: 108 people, from all parts of the world, who will shortly be receiving invitations to a first interview.

It’s a strange feeling. In part, I am happy because the job is complete, and I know that once again we have assembled a wonderful group of candidates. Yet at the same time I look at the large cardboard box that contains the ‘no’ pile, and wonder, not whether I have made a mistake, but rather how many mistakes I have made. Who have I missed? And what might they have achieved had I decided to place them on the pile on my right, rather than the one on my left?

This year WPP received the highest ever number of applications for our first degree Fellowship program: 1700 give or take a few. Traditionally we have competed not just with other marketing communications companies, but also with management consultants and investment banks. And this year, thanks to the financial crisis, these were looking a little less attractive than normal. To be honest, I had expected that our numbers might rise even further, but many potential applicants have told me that if business isn’t likely to pick up for a couple of years then they are just going to wait, take a gap year (or two) and not bother with applications until things improve.

About five years ago we moved to an online application process, which has generally worked well. This year, working with a new technology partner, we encountered more problems than usual, mostly caused by the incompatibility of new versions of some operating systems. It took one candidate two weeks and a lot of individual technical support to submit her application, but we got there in the end. I wrote to everyone to apologise for any problems experienced, but in the event that the technical issues prevented you from receiving my note of apology… well, we’re all very sorry for any inconvenience that our technical teething problems may have caused. We’ll work very hard to ensure that there is no repeat next year.

Having received the applications, we divided them among twelve current and former WPP Fellows for initial screening. Everyone was given around 150 applications, and I asked them to reduce these to 25. The brief was to identify candidates with high levels of academic achievement, a clear interest in marketing communications, a healthy mix of experience (in life and business), and an interesting perspective on the questions we had asked.

About a week later, I received the top 25 (or, in a couple of cases, 35) from each of the screeners, and a number of late applications that resulted from the technical problems. From a total of around 350, my task was to select a hundred or so for first interview. Most of these interviews will be conducted face-to-face in London or New York, with a few taking place by telephone.

Even though I have been doing this for a few years, I never cease to be surprised at just how difficult it is to distinguish between different applications. It’s much easier to say ‘yes’ or ‘maybe’ than it is to say, ‘no.’ At this stage, everyone has excellent academic credentials and seems to have packed an awful lot into a relatively short life. They are interesting, sometimes witty. One makes a joke about Tony Blair ‘sexing up’ a report on weapons of mass destruction and I laugh out loud. I agree with all the ‘must interview’ recommendations of my screeners, and the ‘yes’ pile grows at an unsustainable rate. I want to meet them all.

Only after reading about fifty applications do I start to get a clear idea of what constitutes first interview material and what does not. I thus have to re-read all of them. I have the first of a series of very bad headaches.

I always start by reading the personal introduction. This has to engage me in the same way that a 30-second commercial has to engage before it can inform. It’s the equivalent of the first conversation at a party. Is this person interesting? Do I like them? Would I like to continue the conversation? I then move on to academic achievement and interests, looking at the choices they have made and judging the balance of analytical and intuitive skills. Finally I read the essay questions, asking whether the applicant has an opinion, whether that opinion is well argued, and how well they write.

Like all recruiters, I admit to prejudices. For example, I will not extend an invitation to a person who does not write well. I hate bullet points. I loathe jargon, and especially the word, ‘paradigm.’ My experience has led me to conclude that people who talk a lot about thinking ‘outside the box’ are generally incapable of doing so. And I believe that if you don’t pay attention to detail in an application, then it’s a good sign that you won’t pay attention to detail in your working life.

This year brought its fair share of basic errors. Applicants wrote about ‘knew ideas,’ ‘pop idles’ and ‘geographical boarders.’ ‘Were’ inexplicably became ‘where.’ In the letter that we asked applicants to write to their favourite teacher, explaining their decision to follow a career in marketing communications, several chose to include that old saying, ‘those who can, do, while those who can’t, teach.’ If insulting their favourite teacher had been a part of the brief then that might have been a good idea. And one guy, quoting me from an article I had written, referred to me as ‘Jon Peel.’ I’ve been called worse, but it really helps to get such details right.

But one person’s loss is another’s gain. As the numbers narrowed I felt inspired and humbled in equal measure. Inspired because of the remarkable things that so many of our candidates have done, and increasingly because they look at the world, and at their lives, in ways that I could not. And humbled because I know that I never would have gained a place on this program myself. At that age, I simply wasn’t good enough. (Maybe that’s still true.)

I’m looking forward to meeting or talking to each and every one of the 108 people who have made it onto my list. They are drawn from every continent on earth, and between them speak a staggering 30 to 40 different languages. A few lucky ones will eventually join us as Fellows. Hopefully we can find places for many more inside our operating companies.

Of course the process isn’t perfect, and I know that in the cardboard box in my office – and even in the larger box containing the applications cut in the first screening – there lie large number of candidates who would, if given the chance, do a great job for us. If you are one of those people, I hope that you won’t give up on this industry, and won’t turn your back forever on WPP.

To everyone who has applied this year, I would like to say a sincere ‘thank you’ for all of your efforts. And I wish you all the best for the holiday season and beyond.

Rejection's A Bastard..

Great illustration. Via AnnieMatronic. Usual rules apply.

...but it really, really doesn't matter.

By now, the acceptances and rejections will be coming thick and fast. Some will have gotten to a first round interview in the places they really wanted to. Others won't have been so lucky, and will be wondering why, and what they could've done differently.

This post is trying to help people make sense of rejection.

Firstly, as we've tried to say, a lot of agencies don't do graduate recruitment very well; there an awful lot of agency staffers roped into it. But then, don't expect wonders - agencies aren't PWC or Deloitte, they don't have whole teams plotting and planning your psychographic profile. They're human, they make mistakes. I'm sure there were thousands of applications, and maybe you misspelled something. Who knows?

Secondly...my advice is just don't worry about it. Here's a little story for you. When I first came out of University, being a lazy arse who didn't think to apply for any grad schemes in his final year, I noticed them all opening. I thought that i'd better think a little and try to get on with it.

Starting to be a little more fastidious, I blanketed them all. My first application was a success, and I started to think that this advertising application lark was pretty straightforward. Not so.

I then got rejected (without any real explanation, to be honest) from the rest. And I didn't get any further than a first rounder with the one interview I got. Bollocks.

I set about getting a spot of work experience - working at home in the Midlands to afford to come to London to do some ad agency bits and pieces. I then reapplied the following year, getting to every first rounder (work experience does make a difference). Got through to a few second round days as well, but didn't get on any schemes.

Well, bugger that. Kept blogging, kept coming down to London to meet people and eventually got hired as a baby planner by United London.

Which then went bust. You could say rejection was a bit of a bastard by this stage. There's nothing quite like being told your agency is going to close a few months into the job. Happily, I was able to find some freelance and then my current job. Which, amusingly, had rejected me when I was a grad without explaining why.

So honestly - don't take it personally. Retrenchment, grad rejection - they are part and parcel of the industry. It's very competitive, and I hope Ad Grads can help people get in without all of the faff I went through.

But if you have to go through it as well...don't worry. It's just another way in.

Possibly the finest post on ad careers ever..

But not before the best chart ever. Via Jcniemeyer. Usual rules, etc.

I'd love to be able to claim that it's one of mine...but i'd be lying through my teeth.

No no, it's by an engagement planner at W&K, Jerome Courtial. He's written a rather special post right here.

It should be required reading for any ad person, or wannabe ad person. Be sure to look through all of the links too - he even references Claude Hopkins, someone only Paul Feldwick, me and the ad historians seem to know exists.

Short but sweet this 'un. Hope those applications are going well. Apply some of this thinking to your interviews and you'll go far.

(Yes, I have used that chart in a presentation. It went down well).

Empty Space? No Problem...

Don't fear it...picture by stringberd, usual rules apply.

It would seem that with application season in full swing, some of you asking questions about the forms you've been asked to fill out.

Seems that the prospect of finishing off the app forms with white space has left you in something of a pickle; that you aren't quite sure of what to put. Well, here's a (slightly pointed) thought about that.

Once you finish University, you aren't going to be mollycoddled any more. Sure, many agencies will talk about their spangly recruitment programmes for grads, and will make good, i'm sure. However, advertising (or comms in general) isn't for those who like to be spoon-fed.

No, it's for those who want to take. Those who aren't satisfied with what they see on TV, in the media or just generally around them. Those who want to grab it by the scruff of the neck and make it all just a little bit better.

Blank space shouldn't be worrisome; so there's no clue as to what they want? Invent your own! There's a lot to be said for trying to make a compelling story about yourself, to explain how you came to be where you are today, and how you'll improve the agency beyond all measure.

Sam has already blogged about how he PR-ed his experiences with Saatchi & Saatchi, and how that directly led to him getting a job. There's a similar story for Anton and sort of a similar one for me (blogging does help, honest). We may not have all been on the milkround, but that doesn't really matter.

What empty space gives you is room to manoeuvre. Make the most of it - it's what you'll be doing in your advertising career.

(NB: For that JWT question - I had the same one waaay back in 2005 - which helped me get to interview/was complimented on how I answered that 'use the space' question - I basically wrote a stream of consciousness using different typefaces. Made them chuckle).

Gut Feeling..

Not mine, happily.

Post of that gut aside, this is a thought about you and your instincts.

Just say, in next week's interview chaos, you get to an agency you like and admire. You've seen their TV, their print makes you want to be a better person, and the online work is the reason Tim Berners-Lee invented the internet.

That is, until you sit in reception. You look around and notice just how worried all the agency's staffers look. Surely, this wasn't in the brochure? And, lo and behold, you get a feeling that this place might not be for you.

It's even worse if you meet and interview with people who don't inspire you (though bear in mind that you are more than likely the 40th odd person they've seen today), and leave with an bad taste in your mouth.

Some occasions will be like this, and (most of the time, in my experience) your gut feeling about a place will be right. Just don't be too quick to prejudge; I've interviewed at the same place, years apart, and gotten a thoroughly different opinion of it, depending on who was doing the work.

Finally - for God's sake, don't let the creative quality of an agency blind you. Some of the most fun places to work in adland may not necessarily have the best output at the moment. And who's to say that's down to the agency? As the old saying goes, clients get the work they deserve - it may be this, or it could be a whole raft of reasons.

Idea Thinking...

An idea, yesterday. Picture via Julienne! Usual rules apply.

Rightyho. As promised in the last post, I thought I'd help by attempting to explain the difference between three notions of what an 'idea' is. Anyone who is reading this and wants to disagree, feel free - some of them are open to debate.

1) Executional Ideas

This one should be relatively straightforward. Basically, it's a one-off ad, which builds upon the overall campaign message. So say one of the BT ads with Kris Marshall does something different (say they meet his step-kids father, and the ad advertises new technology), it can be seen to be an executional idea.

Now, this can all be critiqued if the executional idea doesn't seem to fit into a brand line of thinking - say the ad had no resemblence to the ad before it, and jarred with the previous executions/campaigns. Now, if you wanted to criticise a piece of work in your interview/application form, I'd suggest stating that you thought the ad was 'just an executional idea' - that is, it's a one off which jars with any strategic thinking/campaign thoughts of previous work.

In theory, every new ad is an executional idea to an extent, so it needn't be a criticism. But it's a useful piece of terminology to pull out in an interview (particularly if you are interviewed by a planner - they love that stuff, for the most part). Of course, you'll have to explain why..

2) Campaign Ideas

A campaign idea then...I see campaign ideas as being longer term than an executional idea (natch), but not necessarily the full blown 'this is our longest term strategy, which will go on for 20+ years'. Most strategies fall into this category, especially with the quick turn over of new technologies/marketing directors/pricing plans (although work for the latter can just be simply an executional idea - it depends on the range of ads).

This is not to say that they aren't worthwhile, and bloody successful. Often, a really good piece of thinking/planning/creative on a Campaign idea will go on to form the basis of a brand idea - say 'Have a Break, Have a Kit-Kat' - giving people a reason to eat Kit-Kats by making it a little reward for their hard work. It may have once been a short term campaign thought to boost sales, but over time, it has become their big brand idea. (No, I wasn't about in 1957 when they thought it up, so I really don't know for sure).

A modern day example could be, ooh, the majority of ads out there - just be sure you know WHY it's a campaign idea and not an overall brand idea, otherwise you could be left open in interview.

3) Brand Ideas

The legendary ideas. Those that shape a company's thinking for the next 20, 30 or 40 years. Examples of this could be the Avis work 'We're Number 2, so we try harder', which has been running since 1962, the Economist print work from AMV BBDO and Guinness's transition from being 'Good for You' to making a virtue of the product taking a long time to pour, and how this impacts on things being worth waiting for - a genius bit of thinking.

Now, the industry is obsessed with 'big brand ideas', and the above three, I think it's safe to say, are examples of them. They are great and (usually) long lasting because they provide a new way of viewing the product, maybe turning a negative into a positive, but always, always reframing how we see things.

And, of course, they allow agencies to keep ahold of clients for a very long time. Which is great.

Essentially, if you start to talk about any big brand ideas, or any ads, be aware that if you can suss out the 'idea behind the ad', as cliched as that sounds, you'll do very well. It's very easy to say that you like Sony Balls because it's a fantastic piece of film; but what about the overriding message? Have you begun to decode what 'Like No Other' is implying, and how it may well become a great brand idea.

That said, when it comes to talking about other people's ideas, pick one which is likely to be a bit more original - EVERYONE will talk about Sony Balls, Gorilla, Skoda Cake or Citroen's Robot. Be smart, and pick something which isn't obvious - what about the new Brylcreem work? And by all means, say there are bits you don't like/understand etc, if needs be. How you respond initially is every bit as important as deciding which of the three categories the ad fits into - after all, you are viewing it as a potential consumer, and not a planner (yet..).

And for goodness sake, don't mindlessly slag off the ideas at the agency you are interviewing at. You can say you didn't understand things/don't agree with this and that, but be prepared to back it up - and realise that a lot of bad ads come about from poor agency/client relations; there will be a lot going on behind the work that you don't know about - politics and so forth. So be careful..

Empathy - The Greatest Trait

It certainly is. Picture via LastExit. Usual rules apply.

Whether you are a high flying agency exec, a D&AD pencil winning creative, or a grad trying to get into the business, there's one thing which everyone needs to be aware of.

We all need to be hugely empathetic. That is, we need to be able to sympathise with others, and be able to put ourselves in other people's shoes.

The notion, for example, that planning has to be 'the voice of the consumer', is short sighted. But you do have to realise what people's thought processes are rooted in. This is perhaps most marked at the graduate recruitment stage.

Let's say you get an interview (no mean feat in itself). You more than likely have 30 minutes to meet two people (usually an account director and a planner) and talk about why you are right for advertising, etc etc. Now, I imagine these chaps hear a lot of stock answers to things, so put yourself in their shoes? Would YOU hire that person who was technically excellent, but you can't really remember who he or she was?

No, of course not. And it's this kind of thing which separates the wheat from the chaff, those who have done their research (though not too much - don't want to come across as an 'ad nerd', as I'm sure I did) and are, above all, interesting and engaging people.

It is, of course, difficult to legislate for just how well things go, or what kind of interviewer you'll have (everyone is different, and not all people click in half an hour), and just what the dynamic is between the interviewers - some do good cop, bad cop, some are just both smiling intently (I always found that more troubling, to be honest - Sharks do the same thing).

And yes, you can still not get in, even if you interview brilliantly, due to cultural reasons or other candidates just being bloody good/better than you. But having a sense of empathy will stand you in a damn good stead.

You aren't the University you went to..

Books you'll never have to read again (maybe). Thanks to muppetspanker. Usual rules apply.

This is going to be a post that can be split in half, so bear with me.

Sparked by a debate on the Brand Republic forums, I thought I should have a stab at debating the 'Which University' topic here.

Right, first and foremost, I'll briefly explain my University background. I went to Exeter, a fairly good red brick University, and did English Literature, doing pretty well.

Like a good deal of grads, I'd wager, I thought that my marks at University and at A Level (coupled with my father's experiences) would automatically get me a plum job on the grad schemes. I got an interview with Leo Burnett, then systematically bugger all afterwards.

So, lesson one for potential grads - doing well at University does NOT mean you'll automatically get in to a massive agency, and live the life of milk and honey. No way. You need to prove your thinking, and get a little lucky (anyone can just not hit it off with their interviewer on the day).

Let's flip this around, and imagine you went to a University which did advertising as a course, or maybe business. You know (or you think you know) how the industry is run, what's going to happen, and again, think you deserve a passage in. That's also bollocks, and let me explain why.

Knowing the theory behind something doesn't mean you can actually do it. I'm sure there will be a lot of marketing/advertising/business grads, come December, having been rejected from each grad scheme, asking why...

Well, it's fairly simple - you need to be able to point to something (whether you chose a more traditional academic subject, or the more vocational subjects in the case of the latter) that proves you can actually DO the job. Work experience is nice, but even multiple work experience placements doesn't guarantee you can actually do the job - especially as work experience tends to be doing simple work, or being shown the glamourous side of things. To be honest, if someone had a lot of placements, I'd question why they hadn't gotten in yet - surely one of them would have hired that person?

Let's imagine a third scenario. You went to Oxford or Cambridge, and are in the nation's elite when it comes to intelligence at your chosen subject. From my experiences, you're pretty likely to make the first round cull, and get to an interview - in fact, much more likely than those who either went to a red brick or an ex-polytechnic, in my experience.

But then, you bugger up the interview, despite seeming to know this is what you want to do...it doesn't seem to make sense, does it?

Well, let's take all of this 'Which University did you go to' thinking and chalk up a few truisms (and a few warnings):

1) If you went to Oxford or Cambridge you are more likely to get through the process.

It doesn't seem fair to those who applied from non-Oxbridge outfits, but think about it...if you are a HR person or an agency person who has to divvy up thousands of applications, how'd you do it? By University? Well, probably not just that, but it'll surely be a factor (and why not - you want the best and brightest to help win you business).

2) Advertising or more vocational courses don't guarantee you interviews.

Of course they don't. Advertising has always been about variety - if I'm interviewing you, I want to know about your life outside of advertising, not just that you have a vague notion of what a brand key is or somesuch. They are useful to help you get over early hurdles and to help you have an idea that this is what you want to do - but, speaking personally, I know agency people who actively distrust them; they could, after all, lead to rigid, 'course based' ways of thinking about business or branding problems. That said, knowing the business (to a point) IS important.

3) Work experience and knowing about the business helps a lot.

It proves you are keen, regardless of University. But it doesn't negate your University experiences or course; it's just another tick in your favour, and proves you have begun to get your hands dirty. But it's not everything, oh no. People who have an idea about where the business is going, what they'd recommend for certain clients (and can back it up), those people have the aces in the hole, regardless of the work experience they may or may not have accrued.

Right, I hope that was helpful. Ultimately, the graduate recruitment process is a bit of a duck hunt - sometimes you get lucky, and lots of offers; but sometimes your face doesn't fit, or you have a bad interview, or circumstances change beyond your control, regardless of seeming to do everything right. It's not fair, but for God's sake, don't blame anything. Just pick yourself up, and keep trying. And no bitching about your University.