Enlightened Conflict

blandiloquence

June 11th, 2013

blandifiquence wordOk.

The word ‘blandiloquence.’

Blandiloquence comes from a Latin word meaning “smooth-talking” or “flattering.”

blandiloquent (blan-DEL-uh-kwent) – adj., mild and smooth-talking, honey-tongued, flattering, ingratiating.

 

Also comes with an obsolete noun form, blandiloquence, meaning flattery. The word is borrowed from Latin where it meant smooth talk.

Interestingly … bland’s roots <latin> coincide with concepts like ‘melt’ and ‘mild.’

 

Anyway.

The word does throw you off a bit. It’s a contradiction … even a type of an oxymoron.

 

Bland + eloquence.

 

“Bland” … without strong features.

“Iloquence” , from which you get eloquence, which means “persuasive … powerful discourse.”

So maybe it suggests a person without strong features … but with some persuasiveness?blandifiquence saying nothing

 

For example.

Chichikov, a character in one of Gogol’s books, is a lower-echelon civil servant with a corrupt past who specializes in what Gogol calls “blandiloquence” or elaborately empty compliments.

 

And that example leads me to why I decided to write about this <beyond the fact I learned a new word>.

 

There are not many things I dislike more than empty words.

You know what I mean by empty words … these are words that are ingratiating empty of any feeling or deep truth <or even simply a thought>. They are so light and empty of anything that they just seem to float along the top of meaningless drivel.

Now.

 

This doesn’t always translate into ‘less is more.’ This simply about words that are empty.

Because truthfully the amount of words rarely matters if what is used … is used well.

 

As for words not used well? Even one matters … in that even one is too many.

As for empty words? Nothing from nothing is still nothing … use few … use many … does not matter … it still, aggravatingly, equals nothing.

Ok.

The one thing I dislike more than empty words?

 

The empty person who uses them.

The blandiloquent few.

 

Maybe I should just call them the bland people using eloquently empty words.

The blandiloquent are vacuous shells, masquerading as people, who victimize us with words vacant of any thought.

You can recognize these people.

 

First. They are bland.

Without strong features.

Colorless with no depth.

Physically they swim hither and yon wherever the tide may take them. You have no idea what they stand for or what they believe in … they have never had an original thought in their life … and they seemingly have gobs of friends … but no real friends.

 

Second. They are eloquent.

Persuasive and with powerful discourse.

They know the words but don’t know the value of the words. In their eloquent flattery they find solace in a belief it is self-effacing … while others see it as it is … a cheap blanket of words to warm the hearts of all they perceive as powerful … pandering to the powerful weak … pissing off the true with power.

 

Advertising great David Ogilvy once said this:

“Our business is infested with idiots who try to impress by using pretentious jargon.”

 

These idiots … the blandiloquent … stalk the hallways of every business, not just the advertising business <sorry Mr. Ogilvy … it has spread far far beyond your own domain> everyday spreading their cheap honey to anyone who deigns to stop and accept it.

bland magic in the headShame on anyone who accepts this cheap gift.

And shame on those who waste words as if they were a dime a dozen.

And … worst of all … shame on anyone who empties words to a point where they become hollow when used.

Words should have weight … gravitas … color … depth.

People who understand this embrace the burden of words.

 

Blandiloquence.

A beautifully horrible word.

And a word we should all take note of.

Also.

We should take note of the fact this fabulous word is teetering on the brink of extinction … the Oxford English Dictionary has retained the noun, blandiloquence, and an adjectival cousin, blandiloquous but it resides on a seat overlooking all that which is often overlooked.

Harsh uncompromising truth.

In today’s politically correct world a word like blandiloquence is too harsh a truth to recognize … let alone speak out loud.

Baloney.

Save the word because the harsh truth behind it should not be lost.

 

variety branding (and geico)

July 29th, 2010


I have always been a fan of variety branding. Huh?

What I mean is multiple looks and feels for communications and advertising and marketing.

Think Geico as the preeminent example at the moment (even though it is a direct tv example).

In fact. The only reason I am writing about this is because I saw a new Geico ad on TV.

Their approach to encouraging phone calls using TV advertising is awesome.

Uh.

Notice I didn’t use the “B” word anywhere in there (Brand or Branding).

They have Caveman, Celebrities and Gecko (and some other stuff).

Geico is all over the place executionally.

Yet. Still focused on message and personality (ever notice they tend to skew their talent and execution scenarios slightly upscale so it is still attainable but not cheap – while talking about saving less money).

Oh. Using celebrities helps with that too.

Anyway.

I would imagine the ‘Buzzword’ associated with variety in branding is ‘long tail’. Or what is commonly referred to as the long tail of branding.

Okay. Yeah. I got sucked into this buzzword once and wrote a white paper called the long tail of branding (yup. You can download it).

And the main reason why this post won’t be 15 pages long is because I already have wasted all my great thinking and words up in writing that ‘long tail of branding’ manifesto.

Also.

Now that I am fully anti-buzzword I try and keep things down & dirty and focus on some good ole functional ways of thinking about things rather than buzzwords and hype.

So.

What got me thinking about this is the new Geico work on TV … in particular the one with the drill sergeant is awesome:

-          “chug on over to mamby pamby land so you can get some self confidence you jackwagon”

Here is Geico Therapist Sarge:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlWddAXSRA

As a writer you can only dream of writing that dialogue.

This whole variety in executions and consistency in ‘brand’ really is a lightning rod type discussion.

And, oddly enough, I am a convert (and isn’t it said that converts are typically the most ardent believers?).

J Walter Thompson was a HUGE proponent of consistency. And let’s call it “literal consistency” up until maybe the mid to late 90’s when all of a sudden some discussion about ‘how literal do we have to be’ came up in our strategic Thompson Way of thinking about things. Difficult to argue with “make it all look the same so people know who it is and your money works harder.”

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … that is until you start picking away at what exactly do you mean by ‘look the same.’

Everything literally? Or just strategy? Or a logo and maybe a color? (think a template look)

Interestingly I find variations in the definition driven mostly by sophistication (or depth of learning) of the one discussing it.

(and this is going to be a generalization but percentages are with me)

People with larger agency and larger company experience are less literal. They are knowledgeable enough and understanding enough of the strength of strategy and ability to communicate aspects of personality with variety.

People with less breadth of experience stick to the safer spot – make everything look the same.

Where it gets confusing is when people try and mix in money. The less experienced start arguing “clients/companies don’t have enough money for variety they need it all to work together.”

Silly. Very silly. (I hesitated to simply say “bullshit” here)

In fact I would argue that it is those companies who should be seeking:

  1. To insure they had a really good insightful focused strategy which permits some flexibility
  2. To show as many sides of their personality/character as possible to show deepness of understanding into their audience.

But, hey, that’s me.

A couple of “shout outs” on this topic.

I would have to say that the best marketing agency I have seen in the marketplace implementing this idea is Goodby Silverstein. I don’t know if it’s Jeff or Rich or an ethos within their culture but they consistently keep executionally on a strategic direction but are flexible within the messaging to make it all not look the same.

I have worked with a bunch of great creative minds and I am sure there is a bunch out there who are really good thinkers on this topic but the absolute best thinker I have run across on this topic is Luke Sullivan. While I was a ‘variety branding’ believer before I met Luke he is the one who truly articulated how this thinking extended across large campaigns better than anyone I have ever heard talk about this.

Be sure.

Thinking about this idea and doing this idea are two different things.

It is very very easy to talk about.

But actually doing it is not for the faint of heart.

Takes some good smarts and big kahones.

Not so easy a caveman can do it, let me end with that.

Anyway.

The Geico Sarge therapist execution made me laugh my ass off.

Enlightened Conflict