"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand" (Bertrand Russell).
I'm sure many of us are familiar with this scenario: the agency team presents creative work to the brand manager, the marketing manager and maybe even the marketing director. They love the work. The clients leave the agency armed with scripts, an artbag full of boards and maybe even a DVD. Shortly after, the account director receives a call from the brand manager, who explains that, after some "coaching" from his superiors, he now realises that the work (which he earlier described as "spot-on" and "brilliant") is actually somehow wrong and so could you go again please? The moral of the story is that the agency team (suits, planners and, yes, creatives) should always present the work every time, right up to taking the client's board of directors through it.
ON THE WARPATH
Advertising and media planning are still littered with military analogies. We "launch campaigns", "battle" for attention. We talk about "target" audiences and "impacts". We base our thinking on "strategies"; we deploy "tactics". Using this kind of language now seems to define the association between the brand and its audience in all the wrong ways. If we are ever going to change the relationship that advertising has with people, shouldn't we change the language?