The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Monday, April 11, 2011

Sorry Bill. Not on this blog

A recent post on the billboard issue and Alan Hanks drew an utterly ridiculous response from an Alan Hanks operative who successfully diverted the comments on the post away from the issue at hand.

That's not going to happen here. If you support Alan Hanks and wish to speak to his qualifications as mayor, you are welcome here, just as are those who support Weifenbach, Wernicke and Kooiker. But, we are not going to allow ourselves to be sucked into the kind of crap that Bill Fleming attempted in the post below.

Bill is very likely working for Mr. Hanks. He's an excellent political advisor. Mr. Fleming will be allowed to comment on this blog for as long as he wants to as long as he stays on topic. Efforts to change the general subject will be removed. Neither will I allow him to pull a stunt like the wing-nut brochure on this blog. And, when it is attempted (and it likely will be attempted) I will bring it to your attention, gentle readers. I will remove his posts and I will tell you I have done so and why.


Bill Fleming said...

I just thought your readers here might like to know a little about how advertising and media really works, Mike. Your post was far more inflammatory than my reply to it. Your bitterness toward the RCJ and KOTA is kind of surprising. I was just trying to talk you down off the ledge, Man.

That kind of hostility ain't healthy.

Bill Fleming said...

Why, do you think there is something false or nonsensical about what I wrote, Bob?

You do understand that the media is not in the advertising business, don't you? On the contrary, they are in the "space selling" business.

Ad agencies advise their clients as to what their customers want and need and encourage their clients to make promises to their customers that they can keep.

Media doesn't do any of those things. Media rents out advertising "real estate." They are basically information landlords.


Figured I might as well put that missing post in here. it somehow got dropped from the thread below. Glad you made this new thread about what we do, Mike. I should clarify that I am not a 'political operative.' I am a graphic designer, creative director, art director and an advertising and marketing strategist for a wide range of clients, from law firms, to manufacturers, to state and private health organizations to energy companies, etc, etc. You can view our company's portfolio at

Bill Fleming said...

Further clarification: while it is not out of the question that our studio might be retained from time to time to post messages on blogs and/or social media sites, neither I nor anyone on our staff is being paid to post on the Internet on behalf of Mayor Alan Hanks.

To the degree that I may comment on his campaign, the positions I take are my own and should not be construed as being those of the Hanks for Mayor campaign.

My interest in your posts here, Mike, has to do with my concern that your audience may be misled by your seeming assertion that one medium as the same a the other and that they are all in competition for the same advertising dollar. Certainly, that's what the MEDIA would like to have us all believe, and I have spent a good part of my career trying to unravel that myth in order to better demonstrate what an ad agency is, what we do, and how using us is better than just buying media space directly from the source.

In short, I'm trying to protect our industry, Michael. This benefits both your company and mine... Ad agencies in general.

I would think you would be supportive of that. Unless of course you have been corrupted by media reps and have lost your objectivity. I certainly hope that is not the case. but hey, it happens.

anyway, thanks again for this thread. t' been most helpful in allowing me to clarify my position and intentions in these matters.

Wayne Gilbert said...

"Staying on topic" is, of course, a relative, and to that extent a subjective, thing. I noticed that both of Forum guys willingly went with Bill on his sojourn into the world of competition for advertising dollars. I suggest that instead of than taking the time to delete the post,then explaining to us what has been deleted and why, you simply respond to posts you believe to be off topic by saying so in a comment.

Bob Newland said...

"Media" is the plural of "medium," as in advertising medium, broadcast medium, news medium, etc.

The correct syntax would be "Media don't do any of those things. Media rent out advertising 'real estate'...."

Bob Newland said...

Yeah. What Wayne said.

Michael Sanborn said...

Makes sense.

I'm not hostile toward Duhamel or RCJ. I was commenting on their coverage of a topic in which they clearly have a stake. And, I have a good enough relationship with them that I'm not concerned about them knowing I'm disappointed in their coverage of the billboard issue.

I continually look for ways to make my advertising buys beneficial to the client and the media where I place the ads. I get better service from the media, which in turn gets better results for my clients.

Like you, Bill, I am a graphic designer, creative director, art director, copy writer, radio producer, video producer and advertising and marketing strategist for a wide range of clients, from law firms, motorcycle companies, restaurants, automobile dealerships, political organizations, rodeos, charitable organizations, manufacturers, banks and banking organizations, bands, entertainment venues, etc. etc.

I do not post my portfolio online, because I spend my time working for the clients and not on self promotion. My clients like that.

Bill Fleming said...

Maybe, Bob. Unless you are using the term "Media" as a proper noun, similar to the way people say "Big Tobacco" or "Big Corporate" which is the case in my post. Regardless, we advertising copywriters always claim creative and poetic license which lets us get away with... well... a lot.

Bill Fleming said...

Mike, any agency that isn't looking for new business ain't really in business, bud.

Michael Sanborn said...


Bullshit. I choose to not grow beyond my ability to serve my clients, that's all.

Bill Fleming said...

Whatever, Mike.

Bill Fleming said...

(...sometimes Mikie just gets sooo pissy...)

Michael Sanborn said...

Sometimes Billy gets sooooo condescending and it bores me so.

Les said...

"Sorry Bill. Not on this blog"


Bill Fleming said...

Well, Mike, not to be too condescending, and since you've made me the topic of this particular thread, let me ask you a question.

By what authority do you make this claim in the post on billboards below: "And, look at the nine photos on this card. They are all taken with telephoto lenses in order to increase foreshortening and give an utterly false impression of what people really see."

You realize don't you that a telephoto lens simply closes up space between things in the 'foreground' and things in the distance?

And that is exactly what one does when driving in a car. Closes the space between the foreground and the horizon.

itt is thus the perfect way to give an 'impression' of what one would see driving down the road. There is simply no better way to shoot it to give an honest impression.

Further, your foreshortening claim applies only to one or two of the pictures on the card. most of the pictures look exactly as they would appear if you were staining across the street taking a picture of the subject, which is of course 'billboards.'

Do really think anyone who lives in Rapid City is going to take you seriously when you make a claim like that, Mike? Everyone who has eyes in his head knows what the clutter on our streets looks like, and that billboards are a part of that clutter.

further, your claim that people can't really see the billboards for all other on premise clutter is not exactly what Qi would call an endorsement of an advertising medium you claim to like and recommend using.

Sorry, Mike, but you're just being ridiculous here as far as being an artist, a photographer, and an ad agency person is concerned, and I feel it my responsibility to assure your readers that not all of us in the ad biz have the same perspective as you do.

And, thanks again for allowing me the space to do so.

DDC said...

I'm not going to bother getting into the whole telephoto compression debate, but I will mention that two of the photos show the same billboards from different angles.

That would seem a bit dishonest to me. If billboards are such a massive problem in RC, wouldn't it be pretty easy to at least use nine photos of different billboards rather than seven different ones and two of the same ones?


larry kurtz said...

City Hallways


Bill Fleming said...

Interesting question, DDC. Would it be better to show just one shot? Six maybe? You could do 12 or even 16 if you wanted to stick with the square crops.

I assure you there would be no shortage of subject matter.

Seems like one shot you reference may have been chosen to illustrate the point that the back sides of the boards aren't all that interesting to look at either.

Also, that there is no need for more boards, since the ones that are already there are'nt being used.

Ask Mike. There are a lfair number of boards around town that stand empty most of the time, because they're not really in very good locations.

Taunia Adams said...

Wow, Sanborn. If I hadn't checked the blog name twice, I'd have guessed this to be PP's place prior to the ascension. Maybe you and that blog can combine and share the censorship time.

Bob Newland said...

Taunia! Seems like forever. Where ya been? Whatcha been doin'?