Today, I interviewed Jennifer Williams of Me&V(an advertising, public relations, and marketing strategist business for companies nationwide). Williams is a senior copywriter and marketing strategist for the company. Her job consists of composing the "copy," or words, for advertisements that the agency puts out. She also has final say on all proof readings and messages the agency releases. She seemed to love her job and, from what I could tell, the place she works.
"I like to talk about this type of surf," she told me when I posed my first interview question. I explained that this was an assignment for class and we were required to ask what advertising formats they use, if any. She was very one to taking about what they do, saying that the book, while useful, is way over the top. "Sure, we use some of this stuff, but we don't name them. We don't call them "Copy Heavy" or "Frame". We just make the advertisement work for what we are advertising."
It was interesting to interview someone in the ams field as the professor that instructs the class the assignment was in. Williams, or the company through her, had a very different approach to how ads should be done. They believe in humanizing advertisements and that ads without humans in them don't really do much for results.
Williams really went through and picked apart the advertising book, claiming "this is more of a book for a the design element of advertising." This was interesting to hear as we have been drilled all summer that this book covers the vast majority of advertisements when, apparently, it does not.
The interview put into perspective how some professors teach their subject. While I don't agree with the "read the book, lecture the book, test the book" strategy that some professors use, I do believe that the text should have some relevance to the class. So when you take your text book to an interview with a professional that has been in the field for 20+ years and they do everything but say "this book is crap," it makes it hard to take seriously.