Eric Clapton is one of the greatest rock guitarists of all time. Lennox Lewis is a multi-time Heavyweight Champion of the World (not just the USA). George Michael (while I don't care for him or his lifestyle personally) has multiple #1 hit records internationally. Jack Nicholson has been called the greatest actor of his generation. Hugh Grant has had his problems but still remains one of the top box office draws. Prince Andrew is the prince of England. They all seem pretty elite to me.

I suppose the definition of "elite" is subjective, but I don't know anyone in the know in these fields who wouldn't consider at least Clapton, Lewis, Nicholson, and The Prince "elite" or "A-list". You may think that a famous humanitarian or brain surgeon, or car mechanic is "elite" while 99.999% of the rest of the world might not have heard of them. I know guys who have performed for Bill Gates. Would you consider him "elite" or would he, too, be a target of your scorn as the folks listed above seem to be? I have performed for the late Joe Albertson (of Albertson's supermarkets) and JR Simplot, the wealthiest man in the history of Idaho, whostarted and owned an agricultural empire and supplied several of the nation's largest restaurant chains with their food. Do either of them rate as "elite"?

To me, your post comes across as opinionated snobbery. Clearly, you found the ad unintentionally funny, because in your (seemingly very anti-athlete, anti-entertainment) opinion, none of these folks are "A-list". I'd like to know what qualifies someone as "elite A-list" in YOUR opinion. Somehow, I suspect many of us would find THAT "unintentionally funny".

Scott,

Hey, way to resurrect a five-year-old thread!

I think there's a difference between "elite" and "a-listers." I would agree that most, if not all, of the people mentioned in that (half-a-decade-old) ad are, or were, A-listers, in the sense that if I were a social climber making out the invite list, I would love to have them.

But I would also like to think that, if I were writing an ad and wanted to impress people, I would not include on my list people whose "elitism" seems largely founded on their social status. (The whole Royal Family, for instance.)

I guess I can't describe why it seemed like actually a kind of motley crew to me, but it sure did (and does). When I hear Al Koran fooled Einstein, I'm impressed. When I hear someone fooled Ginger Spice, I find it more funny than awe-inducing.

--Josh

Malini, Houdini, and many of the all-time greats put on ALL their marketing materials that they had performed for kings and royals. The whole point of ad copy is to impress the AVERAGE reader of that ad. In order to do that, it makes sense to state that you have performed for people they've heard of. The average reader is much less likely to be impressed that you've performed for, say, the head of literature at Stanford than he is that you performed for, say, Clint Eastwood, or Kelly Clarkson, or Garth Brooks, or the King of whatever.

And last I checked, it was perfectly legitimate to "resurrect" a thread on The Café.

I wasn't implying that it wasn't legit. Just that it wasn't a very hot topic any more.

I understand the point of copy very well, I spent many successful years in advertising. But these aren't materials marketed to the average reader, they're marketed to other magicians. I find there's a difference there. Even if Houdini actually marketed books, services, or lecture notes (:-))to other magicians by talking about the heads of state he'd performed for, that wouldn't prove anything. Plenty of advertising conceits have fallen by the wayside and become curious and antiquated. Look at ANY of the advertising from Houdini's era.

In my performing life, I've done shows requested for celebrities and heads of big companies. I've opened for celebrities, I've had celebrities open for me. I never noticed that celebrity -- even celebrity brought about by true talent (as opposed, say, to the Royals or Paris Hilton, those people famous for being famous) -- was no indication of a person's taste, acumen, intelligence, or anything else, particularly in areas unrelated to the person's achievements. Therefore, it has always seemed laughable to me to say, in effect,, "I have the same painting hanging in my house that that famously discerning art critic, Oprah Winfrey, has. I am the better for choosing to like what she likes."

--Josh

Josh,

I, too, worked in advertising for many years, specifically in sales, copyrighting, and radio spot production. I guess I still don't see your point. What is going to impress the vast majority of magicians looking to buy a product more:

1) "Ed has performed this effect for people of quality, taste and high intelligence and acumen, and many great humanitarians."

2) "When Ed performed this at a private party in Hollywood, Oprah Winfrey happened to be walking by. She stopped and watched in wonder, then squealed with delight. She immediately called over several of her wealthy and famous friends, insisting Ed perform the routine for them. Shortly thereafter Ed performed by personal invitation for the likes of Eric Clapton, Jack Nicholson, and Prince Andrew."

The answer, I would think, is obvious. "Sell the sizzle" is more than a cliche, it is simply good marketing strategy. I would wager that for every magician like yourself who felt Spelmann's ad was "laughable", hundreds more were suitably impressed, and quite a number of those bought the product. Assuming that is the case, the ad did its job.

I seriously doubt that most people much care what George Michael's IQ is, or at what level Hugh Grant's acumen might be.

Please understand that I am not trying to attack you personally here. I simply profoundly disagree with the merits of your position on this. I fully respect your right to profoundly disagree with my perspective.

Scott,

I'm not trying to attack you personally, either. And I've always held your work (your books, at least; I've never seen you perform) in very high regard.

The kind of people I'd be impressed by in this sort of ad by are those who are greats in magic. I think it's much harder to entertain, and to engender a true sense of mystery, in those who've seen as much as some magicians have, than it is to entertain and profoundly mystify people who probably have the same reactions as other laymen, but who also happen to have recognizable names. A genuine recommendation from Max Maven, for instance, would have a greater impact on my purchasing decision than a list of any dozen stars from TV, movies, sports, music, or industry. I know that Max is vastly knowledgeable, discerning, and knows more on my chosen topic than I do. On the other hand, for all I know, Oprah and Eric would be floored by a semi-decent paddle move.

You're right, though -- we're not going to agree on this. I think your view is clearly more pragmatic. Mine's just derisive. You may be absolutely right that your Option 2 may sell a lot more product than Option 1. But just because it's more effective doesn't mean it's not laughably bad...it can readily be both. Mr. Whipple sold a lot of toilet tissue with one of the dumbest, most meaningless ad campaigns ever. And image advertising is often extremely effective even though it says nothing at all. I think those are the kind of ads that have given a bad name to advertising in general, in part because their manipulation is so bald. The fact that it's also effective may be true, but I think it's also sad.

--Josh

OK, now that you elaborated, I understand your point better. An endorsement from Max means more to you than an endorsement from a non-magician celebrity, whether of taste and intelligence or not. That strikes me as more logical and fair, although my response would be that I don't perform for magicians, I perform for non-magicians, and so their opinions are more important to me.

No problem: we agree to disagree and leave it at that. No harm, no foul.

I really think it must be treated as to what it is...an ad. Lot of poetic license here. The world's greatest Hot Dog. The best tasting (insert whatever) in the world, etc. Isn't this nothing more than advertising hype?

You mention having been in advertising. Having said that do you mean that... you never stretched the truth? Speaking of truth have you ever heard the phrase "The truth in advertising"?

Name the 5 most "elite" people in the world. I would have to say if you ask 100 people this you will not get the same response twice. Unless you count, "I don't know" or "who cares" or "what".

So after saying all that I see nothing wrong with the way the ad was phrased.

Acesover,

Let me be clear, I'm NOT accusing the ad (or the adwriter) of stretching the truth in any way. And Marc Spelmann, whose work I've come to be more familiar with in the last five years, is extraordinarily talented.

But there are certain qualities in ads that I like and don't like. Mine are that I don't like ads that appeal to our lesser instincts (such as our tendency to worship at the altar of celebrity), I don't like puffery, I don't like certain pervasive stereotypes (have you EVER seen a man on a commercial who did NOT have to be instructed in basic washing machine usage?), and I certainly don't like to be misled.

In advertising, when I "graduated" from CK-Chicago to DDB Needham, I told the Creative Director that hired me, "I don't like to write ads where people act like morons." He said, "There'll be nothing left to write." But I was able to stick my guns for over a year, at which point the Group Creative Head called me into her office and said, "I have an idea for a Soft Scrub with Bleach (one of our clients) commercial and I want you to write it. The idea is: 'Soft Scrub with Bleach makes cleaning so easy, you'll sing your stains away.' Have people humming while singing. Use the 1812 Overture, I like the 1812 Overture."

I couldn't tell her that it was the dumbest idea I'd heard in a long time (at least, not without losing my job immediately), so I told her the claim would not be believable to the target demographic. She insisted. So I created an alternate identity for myself, "Copywriter X." From then on, when somebody told me to write a commercial with puffery and/or moron characters, I'd say, "Don't ask me, ask Copywriter X, he writes that kind of ***t."

--Josh

P.S. We shot the commercial. It was tested in focus groups. The head of the company that ran the focus groups came back to the Group Creative Director and said, "We've never had a spot that tested lower than this one. Every single person in the group said it was stupid and unbelievable." I rejoiced, but Copywriter X was crushed.

My Mum thinks I'm pretty good..

Hey guys, happy 2010 to you all.. I always find reading these old posts genuinely interesting.. I get Josh's point as I do all of you. The ad copy or indeed a chunk of it was taken off of my brochure which was meant for 'normal' folk..

Words from Banachek, Osterlind, Cassidy or Maven are always more impressive in our world..

Be well and much respect to all of you..

MS

P.S.

Josh can I use 'extraordinarily talented' from you on my site.. You sweet kind man.. ;-)

Best to you sir..

MS