Faux Online Experts

Blogging Should Require a License
The information age is thriving, but are we really learning anything of value?

I am not an expert. To be an expert, I figure one has to be immersed in a field for many years. While I may not have decades of work experience, I am schooled enough to easily determine whether a resource is credible.

The blog post titled "17 Strategies to Killer Ads" has been RT'd as an authority enough to grab my attention, and when I read it I threw up a little. Poor grammar and spelling aside, what are these gentlemen talking about?

Here's an excerpt:
"In the Advertising world, the creative process look like this: Strategy > Concept/Idea > Campaign & Tagline > Executions. You can see, the Strategy is in the most beginning of an entire idea and it is an approach, based on market research and insights, as to how a product or service will be positioned/repositioned. After reading The Advertising Concept Book by Pete Barry, we have an overall look at 17 different strategy for killer ads."

First off, the creative process as proposed by Roger von Oech (which is used by many Fortune 100 companies) looks nothing like what Harman and Penter (the minds behind 17 Strategies) outlined. Creative process; within the advertising industry, is the procedure used to find unique ideas or re-imagine old concepts. According to Oech, it consists of Research (Explorers)> Visualization (Artists)> Evaluation (Judges)> Presentation (Warriors).

Secondly, strategy is a plan-of-attack. This list doesn't show strategy, it shows the attention getting device/style. It shows HOW the message can be presented to pique interest and capture attention. Simply choosing one of these examples is not strategy and if the wrong device is selected the ad will fall flat with the target audience.

Finally, I feel obligated to caution fellow advertising professionals from distributing poor information. I saw this article (and others that are just as questionable) pop up on the feeds of some very sharp minds and that tells me that either:
A. People are not really reading these articles before forwarding them.
-or-
B. People are not fact-checking these articles for credibility.

In summation, as a basis for this post I used one hard-cover book and two online dictionaries to verify my conclusions before rebuking the authors of "17 Strategies to Killer Ads." Merriam-Webster, MAANZ Glossary and the textbook "Contemporary Advertising" by Willaim F. Arens are legitimate and credible sources. While I am only joking about blog licenses, I do feel that writers need to have more than one source when 'blogging to instruct' and making information up is not a good way to establish your expertise.