This was a small project, a favour to some friends.
But I was really pleased with the results. (Or, as the kids on LinkedIn say ‘I’m humbled to be associated with this project’.)

BITE Collective specialise in shooting food, film and stills.
Like every business on the planet, they wanted to grow.
One of their frustrations was that many agencies didn’t seem to understand the skill and knowledge needn’t to make food look great.
Sometimes their directors would be shortlisted for a job against directors who’d never even shot food.
And sometimes they’d lose.
They had a thought – could we talk to clients directly?
Maybe we run a campaign in The Grocer? (The trade bible for the food retailers.)
We loved this idea.
Who’s more invested in how food looks than those selling it?
Having got their attention, what should we say?
Stating that Bite Collective specialise in shooting food, however creatively, felt too soft, we have to challenge the way commercials are currently commissioned.
We need to win the argument.
Get people to think “That’s true, why the hell are we giving our food commercials to directors who don’t know how to shoot food? It’s nutso!”
How can we get that response?
We could point out the craziness of picking the wrong specialist for the right job simply because one word in their title sounds right?

A bit wordy.
Sounds a bit desperate.
Almost patronising.
Maybe we just remind them that not all directors are the same?

You leave the ad better informed that there are many kinds of surgeons and doctors, but none the wiser of why you should choose Bite Collective to shoot your food ads.
Maybe we should point out the difference between directing people and food?

Quite funny, quite clever, quite charming, but they don’t challenge the viewer to change the way they operate.
Maybe remind them they have a choice in the type of directors they choose.

Bold, graphic, but you have to read on to understand them, we need something quicker and clearer. For a start, we could flag that we are talking about directors.

The copy in the ads above starts to feel persuasive.
Maybe we build on it - pointing out exactly why food doesn’t behave like humans?

The drawings look a bit naff and childish, but if shot they’d look more sophisticated.
The worry is; they’re a bit slow, quiet and long winded.
We need something simpler, more brutal.

These seem better. 
Intriguing. 
They also challenge the viewers' preconceptions head on.

What food should we shoot and how should it look?
It’s tempting to say it’s for a film company that specialises in shooting food - so gorgeous!
No.
We aren’t selling the images, we're selling an idea.
We need to place our audience at the beginning of the process, before a director has been chosen.
These are the ‘before’ pictures, not the ‘after’.
So the food should be in its natural state, unmanicured.
Emphasising that this food doesn’t look amazing naturally.
It needs help.
So we should shoot it simply, it should look effortless.
Simple, basic foods would be better to shoot than not exotic, inherently interesting food.
This is a sliding doors moment for marketing directors.
Which director they approve determines how delicious the products look.
‍
Gus Filgate, one of Bite Collectives directors/photographers, shoots them.

He does a great job; they look great.

I wonder whether the balance of the layout is wrong - maybe the text needs to be more prominent?

Mmm...looks a bit dull.
Maybe it’s the font?

No, it looks too whimsical. 
The argument should look like it has a bit of gravitas.
Plus, the big piece of food is louder, more attention grabbing.

Looks more authoritative.
I wonder whether it would be clearer if we lead with what the food can’t do, then question why you would give it to a comedy director?
The client also asks if we could try it with their logo and font from the website.

Judging fonts is terribly subjective, this one is quirkier and consequently ‘sounds’ less authoritative.
What kind of idiot would argue against including the client's logo?
This one.
Our primary goal isn’t to get the name Bite better-known.
We are trying to change behaviour.
To do that we need to get our case heard.
The only way we can get our case heard is if people actually read our argument.
The minute you put a logo on an ad you announce it’s an ad.
Ads try to sell you things, most people don’t want to be sold to, so ignore it.
We counted the ads in the latest issue of the Grocer; 92.
92!
All brightly coloured pages with nothing to say.
We need to look the opposite.If people look at our page and think ‘what is it’? That’s good, they’ll then move to the words.
It’s degrees.
Maybe the no logo version gets read by only 5% more.
But that would be thousands of people.
We go with intrigue; logo-less.