« Off target, please | Main | Interesting, in a bad way »

Comments

josh

Another interesting analogy is that law is all about stories told round a particular construct. So, for instance, if I want some recompense for that fact that Jeffre drove over my foot, I need to tell a story that proves 4 things: that Jeffre had a legal Duty not to run over my foot, that he Breached that duty (that he did drive over my foot), and that it Caused some Injury. The facts of various situations will always be unique, but to tell an effective story (i.e., where you win your case), you need Duty, Breach, Causation and Injury.

Which reminds one of ad-land discussions. "A good ad must have a clear story..." "An effective ad has to have a call to action..." etc, etc. Or campaign debates. "If we're not on the web it won't be cool." "Print is dead."

But communications isn't like the law in this respect. There are no mandated constituent parts.

Jeffre Jackson

Yes. If you think of them all as genres of storytelling, the strictness of the stylistic rules increases as you go from art to advertising to law to science. Another reason why law is the most appropriate analogy for advertisers aspiring to greater rigor. Art is a step backwards and science is too far a stretch.

As a lawyer who became a planner, do you miss having mandated constituent parts?

And I'm sorry about your foot.

josh

OK, that's either really freaky or I forgot I told you.

I actually got out of law because of the mandated codes. Some people love that aspect of storytelling, and revel in the creativity of convincing people that a certain event actually fits some legal definition. But I found it stifling. Which is not to say that advertising can't be stifling as well.

I actually think that Planning leans a bit outside of that, which is why I was attracted to it.

The comments to this entry are closed.