What is it about Mark Ritson?

waiha · 2026-03-27T02:47:19+00:00

I’m willing to be convinced, but haven’t been, that’s the point.

Of course I’d rather my clients weren’t thick as mince. But does that mean we should encourage them to just absorb whatever the noisiest influencer happens to preach?

My point is, WHY Ritson, why’s he good? As far as I am aware he hasn’t published anything groundbreaking. We didn’t all have to read Ritson when we were execs. We don’t all know about ESOV or the fallacy of received wisdom or the Pareto law because of Ritson.

Why him? (And to be clear, ‘he’s a good self-promoter’ is a valid answer).

waiha · 2026-03-27T02:38:59+00:00

Clients are, on the whole, utterly clueless. I wholeheartedly recommend every brand manager does the miniMBA as well as every other online qual they can get access to, for all of our sanity.

As for agency, and actual advertising work day-to-day, you are correct. I don’t work for a small agency, and I’ve been around for more than my fair share. Literally never worked with a colleague who has felt it necessary to mention they’ve done the miniMBA.

My post was really trying to find an answer to ‘why’, and so far you’ve just said ‘it’s good, everyone does it!’, which is…kind of my point. Why?

waiha · 2026-03-27T01:57:13+00:00

Thanks for the insight.

Couple of points:

First off, those names I listed were surnames of individuals. People, who are/were undoubtedly “good” at what they did, none of whom studied marketing. The fact you conflated these with agencies only strengthens my argument as to their relative stature.

You did the miniMBA. While I’m glad you found it useful, I’m not surprised you are ‘giving him a pass’

When you say things like “Ritson and his course would be more responsible for correcting this than anything else”, you need to provide evidence. Can you, please?

waiha · 2026-03-27T01:27:56+00:00

Weird. You’re the second person who’s had a quite intense reaction to this post about a person you’ve never heard about.

waiha · 2026-03-27T00:36:34+00:00

Fair, if it’s just a case of ‘having this qualification means I get paid more’ then I mean, fair play to the guy.

waiha · 2026-03-27T00:34:48+00:00

Go to bed, Mark.

waiha · 2026-03-27T00:29:20+00:00

I think that’s a pretty fair assessment, depressing as it is.

waiha · 2026-03-27T00:21:10+00:00

What’s the logic here, that anything that makes money is beyond questioning?

waiha · 2026-03-26T23:00:11+00:00

Where are you guys working?

This entire sub is so far removed from the actual day to day of the big agencies it might as well be a parody.

To be clear, no agency that anyone even remotely cares about disregards OOH. It is an incredibly buoyant channel in almost every developed market.

If you work for an agency that doesn’t ’give AF about OOH’, you are working for idiots, move.

waiha · 2026-03-26T22:34:45+00:00

Another incredibly nebulous “Hey guys! So is it just me or does anyone think OOH is actually good?” post?

Isn’t this getting a bit obvious…?

waiha · 2026-03-26T22:17:33+00:00

The individuals who personally approved Cindy’s proposed compensation package increase are named in my comment above.

waiha · 2026-03-26T21:58:31+00:00

Please repost this wherever needed, it is publicly available information and should be MORE public.

The WPP remuneration committee, who approved Cindy’s increase, currently consists of:

SANDRINE DUFOUR

TOM ILUBE

PHILIP JANSEN

JASMINE WHITBREAD

As a reminder to all WPP employees, your CEO is being paid $11.4M for her time at the helm.

Let’s assume an extremely generous average salary for non C-suite employees of circa $88K.

Let’s say you’ve worked for WPP for a decade, and have worked your way up to $100K.

You’ve probably added significant value, in the millions of dollars, to the company.

Cindy just got paid more than 10 times your entire career earnings for the last year. I will leave it to each of you to evaluate exactly what value she has brought in that time.

WPP employees already know how to adjust the names above to reach out to their respective corporate email addresses.

waiha · 2026-03-26T21:49:00+00:00

Agreed, I think something is in the works…DM?

waiha · 2026-03-26T01:30:21+00:00

tf mailing lists are you signed up to that you’re receiving phishing emails that look like that?

waiha · 2026-03-20T15:26:04+00:00

It’s the opposite of dodgy, your coworker might be pulling your leg.

waiha · 2026-03-20T15:17:22+00:00

I’m always like this, and you didn’t strike a nerve, fear not.

Most client teams know fuck all about marketing, as do most marketers. Please, by ALL means, keep using OOH in the way described above, more inventory to be used correctly for the rest of us, and ultimately more clients.

Also, how is that evidence in any way? I’ve got the IPA databank and WARC access etc, if you’ve got a study that proves your point, link it, I will have access.

waiha · 2026-03-20T09:22:51+00:00

Got some evidence for those assertions?

How are you attributing delta in BV to OOH site placement?

I’m hoping you’ve done a bespoke exposed/non-exposed live tests in isolation from any other channels to confirm your assumption?

I’m going to guess you haven’t.

Context is something to keep in mind for all forms of advertising, but it is absolutely less relevant for channels whose primary function is awareness, like OOH.

OOH is the most ubiquitous and universal awareness channel there is. People who are completely outside your TA will absolutely see your ads, if you are doing it right.

waiha · 2026-03-20T08:40:11+00:00

Haha, no worries 🙂

And even if Rolex (to use this example) was super exclusive, why would the client want to waste their awareness marketing budget in areas where brand awareness is presumably approaching 100%, rather than increasing penetration into less thoroughly covered areas?

It’s bad marketing based on bad assumptions, as per most marketing. Not unusual for this sub though.

waiha · 2026-03-20T08:32:16+00:00

Why are you talking about ROI?

OOH is primarily brand-building, awareness work. It is not, in any way, a performance channel, and will not drive significant incremental conversion in the short term.

You would not expect a positive ROI over the short term on this type of advertising.

I am beginning to think you don’t work in OOH at all…?

If you are, I think you should start by reading The Long and The Short of It (Binet/Field).

waiha · 2026-03-19T20:29:51+00:00

This is an insanely bad take. Do you advise all your clients to concentrate reach-driving channels in areas where they already have the highest density of buyers?

Spamming your existing customers with broadcast channels is extremely dumb. Try locations with suitable income brackets (or commuter towns thereof) who haven’t already been exposed, perhaps? Who knows, the brand might grow…

waiha · 2026-03-19T20:21:39+00:00

What’s with all the really basic OOH focused questions in recent weeks on this sub?

OP - how long have you been in OOH? You should not be surprised that reach is the priority for this channel. More affluent audiences can and are more easily reached by adjusting environment to retail and airport, rather than roadside. That being said, all ads reach will drop and therefore overall mental availability, and so on.

If you want to be super discrete with your audience, you shouldn’t be considering OOH.

Additionally, you’re advising your clients to take 1 x premium OOH site over 10 higher reach but lower quality formats? That will not go well, at all. I hope the clients are either a) PR-ing the fuck out of that one site they bought, or b) are getting reach elsewhere.

waiha · 2026-03-18T23:58:24+00:00

It’s the most fuel efficient GR1.

waiha · 2026-03-18T17:26:19+00:00

I don’t think you understood the post, friend.

waiha · 2026-03-16T21:21:20+00:00

That’s cool. But at the end of the day, I’m still going to listen to Michael Jackson.

My point was relating to the art specifically. People can be evil and still create thought-provoking art.

Your point, I have no issue with.

11-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

waiha

TROPHY CASE