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 the things stopping that was the lack of understanding of the expertise that went into making food look good on film.
Agencies often placed them on shortlists for a food focussed ads against directors who’d never shot food before, sometimes losing.
It was frustrating.
They wondered whether they could talk to clients directly?
Maybe 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 found our audience, what should we say?
Simply stating that Bite Collective specialise in shooting food isn't enough - we need to challenge the way the commercials are 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!”
So, how can we get that response?
Point out that just because one word in someone's title sounds right doesn't mean they're right?

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

You leave the ad understanding there are different kinds of surgeons and doctors, but not 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, clever-ish and charming,
But they don’t challenge the viewer to change the way they operate.
Maybe we need to remind them they have a choice in the type of directors they choose?

Bold, graphic, but a bit slow, 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 is more persuasive than the ads.
Maybe we point out exactly why food doesn’t behave like humans?

The drawings look childish, if shot, they’d look more sophisticated.
But they’re a bit long winded, not punchy and confident.
We need something more brutal.

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

What food should we shoot and how should it look?
Simple, basic, everyday foods would be best, not exotic, inherently interesting looking food.
It’s tempting to say it should look absolutely gorgeous!
Afterall, it’s for a company that specialises in shooting food.
But we aren’t selling beautiful images, we're trying to change behaviour.
Our desired response isn't 'that potato looks great', it's 'why on earth aren't we getting food specialists to shoot our food?'.
So placing our audience at the beginning of the process would help that.
Therefore the food should be in its natural state, emphasising that it doesn’t look amazing naturally.
It needs help.
These are the ‘before’ pictures, not the ‘after’.
This is a sliding doors moment for marketing directors - their choice of director will determine how delicious their product will look to potential buyers.
‍
The Bite Collectives Gus Filgate shoots some simple foods.

He does a great job, the images look effortless.

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?

Nope, now it looks too whimsical. 
Our 'case' needs to look like it has more gravitas.
Plus, a 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.