Omnicom Legal Snoozer, er, Seminar

In the interest of actually preserving my job here at The Integra...Interger...Integger...oh INTEGER Group (seriously, how is it a difficult word?) I will reserve my feelings on this bit of mandated industry education. Though if you've walked by my cube in the last few days you've likely read the rant I wrote on my wall. What I will say is this: There are many methods a company can use to inspire their creatives, to get more out of the idea bucket (some call it a toilet), and Integer has used a number of those methods in the past.

However, having a corporate lawyer come tell you to keep in mind while ideating all the unpredictable and frivolous lawsuits brought upon advertisers over the years is NOT one of those ways. Yes, I understand the importance of having a lawyer come speak to the employees, but the kinds of lawsuits he talked about that we have to watch out for fall into two buckets: 1) Sheer stupidity and 2) Unpredictable frivolity. The first being lawsuits brought against companies for things like trademark infringement and, honestly, you have to be a certified moron to commit some of the infringements he talked about. Avoiding these types of lawsuits isn't hard if you act intelligently and ethically (i.e., come up with a somewhat original idea and don't steal). The second bucket is, as I say, unpredictable. So many humorless individuals and overly-sensitive and, in my opinion unnecessary, special interest groups sue or threaten to sue nowadays for the most ridiculous of reasons. Two recent examples: Snickers being told their men-accidentally-kissing ad was homophobic. No, you morons the ad was making fun of homophobes! And the other was the GM ad where a robot dreamed of losing his job and committing suicide which incensed a suicide prevention group saying the ad was insensitive. Of course where was that prevention group that purports to fight for the people when GM cut thousands of jobs? Certainly that's more insensitive to the depressed and suicidal than a commercial about a robot who has a nightmare.

The point is if you insist upon your creatives to curb their thinking, to dull their wits, in order to avoid these latter types of scenarios then what you're asking for, quite honestly, is shit creative. And the majority of American advertising is already shit. We, and our clients, should pride ourselves on being fearless—not shocking—and remaining true to the brand identities and consumer followings that we create, perpetuate, and facilitate. Instead it seems as if we are being told to appeal to the lowest common denominator which, in the end, really appeals to a minority if anyone at all.

What I will take from the seminar is this: there's a lot of really weird, overly sensitive people out there with no senses of humor. I already knew that we lived in a society that is so cravenly PC that it long ago lost the ability to laugh at itself, but it's still disheartening to be reminded of it every now and again, just when you start to gain hope for the future. The point is I know we live in a sue-happy society, people think it's their easy route to a big payday (and thanks to greedy lawyers and their astronomical fees dissuading companies from fighting these lawsuits these people are usually right), and I know that we have to be careful. But I also know that in a lot of situations there's nothing you can do because these people are unpredictable. But I will keep in mind that we are part of larger, publicly-held company. The problem is that might actually inspire me to be edgier, and I'm not sure that's what they want. But trust me it'll drive up the stock price.