Weak Points
August 20th, 2008 by Michelle Diener
I’m South African, and under the laws of SA, comparitive and desparaging advertising is illegal. So no one can use their advertising money to belittle a competitor, only to promote their own product. This goes for politics, too.
So imagine my surprise when I was driving along in my new home, Perth, Australia, and hear a radio advert by one political party ripping another party’s policies to shreds. My jaw literally dropped. But this was so new and interesting to me, I listened very carefully every time I heard an ad which was an attack, and I came up with a few interesting thoughts.
If I was one of the people being attacked, I’d make sure I listened very well to the attack ad. Because they only have 30 seconds odd to rip into you, and it makes sense they’re going to go for the weakest points. Maybe the people being attacked don’t think they’re being attacked on a valid point, but if there is even the slightest doubt, what a great way to hone in on your iffy areas. Your competitors are summarizing your weak points for you!
I can see from this how the ‘American Idol’ style of reading an author’s first few pages and having industry professionals comment on it with paint stripping honesty has its fans. There can’t be a faster way for your weak points to be made apparent to you. But it can be a bit too much pain and suffering. It is public, it is subjective. But wow, it’s a fast solution.
I’m not a fan of negative commenting. I don’t like snarky-ness for the amusement of others at someone else’s expense, but straight-forward, honest opinions I’ll take any day. As long as I keep in mind that it is only an OPINION and the person has no agenda other than honest gut reaction, I’ll be up for it any day of the week.
What about you? Do you have an opinion on this?
21 Responses to “Weak Points”
I’m okay with honest opinion, even if it’s negative, but when it’s clear (to me, anyway) that the person making the criticism is doing so aggrandize herself, I’ve got a big problem with it. I was at one of those “Idol” type events at an RWA conference a few years ago, and the agent taking the “Simon” role was clearly into it for making herself look clever and witty, not for offering insightful commentary.
I felt sorry for the authors whose work was publicly shredded to build up this agent’s ego, I felt sorry for the agent’s co-panelists, who seemed appalled at the nasty tone, and I actually felt sorry for the agent herself, that someone in her position would be so insecure that she needed to behave in such a way.
Wickedly funny snark’s fine with me, if it’s honest and not a cover for a hidden agenda.
You have the nastiest habit of putting luscious looking treats on your blogs, Michelle. That’s just plain evil, in my opinion.
I personally dislike negative attacks, whether its in politics or McDonalds saying their burger is better than Burger Kings’. They irritate the hell outta me.
By the same token, if you see a weakness in my writing, I want to know. But, please … do it in a constructive, helpful way. I don’t need someone tearing apart my work without making valid points. At Nationals last year, when that panel (a la American Idol) tore into the samples put forth (without making constructive suggestions), that just left a bad taste in my mouth.
I think Lynne nailed the problem with RWA Idol. It turned into an ego thing for one of the agents. But for the last two years, the Wisconsin Romance Writers had similar panels at their conference, and the comments were brief but helpful. They weren’t said in a snarky way.
We’re being bombarded with negative ads right now, and the problem with many of them is they’re distorted, misleading and sometimes downright lies. They’re made to push people’s emotional buttons. They’re pushing mine, because I don’t like them and I’m losing respect for the candidate that says “I approve this message.”
Wow, no opinion, but that is really cool. It’s illegal? Wow! I can’t get over that. I suppose I have to take free speech over that law, but… I don’t know. I really like that law.
Oh, and I heard the Idol thing on tape. We’re they going for the Simon thing? Well, whatever. All those agents got put on my I-will-never-query-them list. It was really uncomfortable to listen to.
Hey Michelle, I was with Lynne during that Idol panel, and they did eventually read a few lines of my work, and I did feel bad. But, it was fleeting thank God, and I got back in my I-believe-in-myself-mode again. Lynne’s right, it was nasty. Live and learn… I’d be interested in listening to one with a different flavor, though. Like the one Edie mentioned.
Michelle welcome to the land of freedom of speech!
Spy, I had the same reaction to the Idol event in 2006. I will never query that agent. I just don’t need people that insecure and mean-spirited in my life, and there’s no way I would want them out there in the world representing me and my work! Oy.
Edie, I do think this kind of one-page blind analysis could be done in a helpful and even entertaining way. No surprise to me that this kind of cool stuff happens in YOUR chapter.
If I had a chapter that nice nearby, I might even be tempted to join RWA again.
Yeah, LaDonna, that event was the pits. While you were gone to your appointment, I saw more than writer leaving the room in tears.
Well Australian politics is like that, a friend of mine is Shadow Minister for the Environment, Qld state parliament, and he’s had to endure such rot as well. Makes me rethink my goal of running for state legislature in 6 years (it’s on my 10 year plan thing I do, I love lists).
It’s not easy when people criticize you personally, and sometimes our writing is very personal. Best thing to do is shrug it off and move on. No one needs to carry excess baggage around, we’ve already got too many love handles for that sort of thing *g*.
Lynne, although WisRWA is a great chapter, I think it’s the agents/editors who make up the judging panel. Last year it Pam Hopkins and Michelle Grajkowski (I can’t remember if someone else was on the panel). This year it was two editors: Hilary Sares and Rose Hilliard. They said what they thought honestly but nicely.
I feel like when someone rips apart the weakest parts of my writing, assuming it’s not done out of pettiness, that shows respect for me as a writer. Because they believe I can fix it, or else they wouldn’t point it out to me.
You ought to come to the US…What a eye opener that would be. It’s a every day occurance.
Lynne, I’ve never personally been at one of those sessions, but I did hear part of the 2006 one on tape, and actually ended up not listening past about 10 minutes because of the tone.
Honest, straightforward opinion without a hidden agenda (whether ego or anything else) would be good, though.
Hehehe, Liz. I called the blog Weak Points, so put some of my favorite weak points up in the pic
.
I have to agree with you that my initial reaction to negative ads is suspicion. So do they really serve a purpose? I suppose if they keep doing them, they must think so.
Edie, it was your experience that I had in mind when I was writing this blog. Sounds like it was the perfect marriage of honesty and constructive criticism.
Spy, in SA there is freedom of speech. If you want to say something in the press, accuse someone of something, write a book that expresses an out-there opinion, you can. But paid advertising, where the person paying has a vested interest in demeaning or undermining a competitor, is not allowed. It walks a fine line between lies and opinion, so all you can do is say how wonderful you are, not how terrible anyone else is. I always thought (and still do) that it is a good law.
Wow, LaD, I never realized you were in that RWA session. Good for you for shaking it off and taking the opinions from whence they came.
LOL, Karin, see my response to Spy. I’ll add to that comment by saying that it also seems to me that negative advertising starts a downward negative spiral. To combat an attack, the other party then has to get an ad together either defending their position or attacking the attackers. Was negative advertising something the ad execs of broadcasting corporations came up with, do you think?
Natalie, good luck with your goal. More writers should be in politics, IMHO.
And you are 100% right about having to shrug it off. That kind of baggage can really weigh you down.
That’s what I mean, Zoe. Honesty without the agenda. Give it to me straight, LOL.
Lee, so I gather from the other comments. As I said to Liz, the advertisers must think it works if it’s so wide-spread, but I prefer positive to negative messages.