This one's for my late ad man dad man, Tom Murray. He knew Leo Burnett a little bit, and found the man unpleasant but the ideas right. On the 75th anniversary of Burnett's firm, I watch Burnett's retirement speech and have about the same reaction.
On communication, professional and otherwise.
Listening to this guy is painful. Of course the employees of advertising agencies
need to focus their attention on improving the quality of their output. Better ads translate into more product sold which in turn translates into higher ad revenue and greater profits for the agency. Leo Burnett did not need to lecture his employees about this truth. They understood it perfectly so his musings came off then as they do now as condescending dribble.
The real objective of managerial lectures like this one emphasizing doing the job well for the sake of the craft itself, integrity, or your own professionalism is to divert employee attention away from all the money that is going into Leo’s pocket.
Jim, while I agree that the speech is condescending, it has proven to be a touchpoint for the company for many years.
As for Leo’s motives, I can’t speak for them, but I do know something about the culture of advertising agencies back then.
My dad was creative director at Campbell-Ewald in the 1960s and head of his own agency in the 1970s.
Back then, foolishly or naively perhaps, there was a kind of idealism among ad-agency creatives: They talked earnestly and deeply about their craft (my dad gave speeches called “the man inside the man,” and “the importance of being interesting”).
And as I wrote in Ad Age a couple years ago, they believed that if they wrote more honest, human ads, the world would actually become a better place for it.
Of course, the same guys also believed–really believed–that what was good for GM was good for America.
In any case, I’m pretty sure Leo Burnett wasn’t needing to divert employee attention away from the money he’d made.
It’s so hard to imagine the era when people who worked for ad agencies and clients really believed in what they were doing.
But, to an extent far greater than anything we see today, they did.
I wonder if he felt the company was actually heading down that path. Did he change behavior with his words? Was he trying to?