Letter: Judson View

In David Harries' letter ('Montreal view') in the Jan. 23 issue, he writes that the title of my column suggests that I speak for all of the Montreal ad community.I am sure that was not the intention of my editors, who...

In David Harries’ letter (‘Montreal view’) in the Jan. 23 issue, he writes that the title of my column suggests that I speak for all of the Montreal ad community.

I am sure that was not the intention of my editors, who created it, and I only intend to speak for myself.

Maybe the title should be changed to ‘One, Single Montreal View?’

Also, by writing ‘[Judson] is presenting a point of view that does not accurately represent the view of most industry people in Montreal,’ he appears to be suggesting that he speaks for everyone, which is curious.

His statistics on how the advertising business is shared in this city are interesting, but they don’t mean very much to me. I assess how the business is divided by looking at the accounts agencies have and estimating what they are spending.

Even though the total billings of small agencies represents a substantial amount of business, it doesn’t tell us how profitable this business is.

I have to admit that I think Bell and General Motors are far more lucrative accounts for an agency than 35 small accounts worth the same in billings.

Also, he misunderstood one of my references to David Ogilvy. I never suggested that Ogilvy lacked faith in the abilities of smaller ad agencies.

His belief that Ogilvy could have become as financially successful as he became anywhere at anytime is a tough argument to either refute or prove.

But recent history has shown that it is very difficult to build an ad agency or any other kind of company during an economic depression.

Foug’s recent sale of a portion of its equity to dmb&b may be construed as further proof of that.

Also, nowhere in my column about Cossette’s and bcp’s monopoly of Montreal’s most profitable accounts did I suggest, as Dermod Travis says in his Feb. 6 letter (‘Get on with `real change’ ‘) that their scraps be handed to the city’s small agencies.

With the exception of Travis’ shop, I think many small shops here would readily gobble up any tidbits tossed their way by the two largest agencies.

Unfortunately, this will never happen. Cossette already has their own cub agency to handle the smaller accounts it doesn’t want. It’s called Blitz.

And if you study the account wins of the last couple of years, you will find that no larger agency here has been too proud to take accounts that in better economic times they wouldn’t have touched.

Also, I never suggested that anybody is owed anything. I wrote that small agencies ‘could use the work more.’

I think you would have a hard time finding any small agency who would honestly disagree.

Even Judson Woods, and we’re haulin’ in all sorts of new business.

Michael Judson

Judson Woods

Montreal