Charles Porter

Chairman, Crispin Porter + Bogusky
Miami, FL, United States

About Charles

Bio

Chuck Porter
Chairman
Crispin Porter + Bogusky


Chuck joined the agency in 1988 as creative director and partner after a long career as an award-winning freelance copywriter. The agency was renamed Crispin & Porter, and within three years, it had doubled in size, had been profiled in Communication Arts, and had been named one of the top-15 creative shops in the country.

Today, Crispin Porter + Bogusky (CP+B) is perhaps best known for its work with Burger King, as the creator of the ‘truth’ anti-tobacco campaign, and for its successful launch of the BMW MINI. Based in Miami and Boulder, CP+B’s clients include Kraft, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Best Buy and Domino’s Pizza.

Since 2000, the work done by CP+B has gained a global reputation. The agency has the unprecedented distinction of having won the Grand Prix at the Cannes International Advertising Festival in five categories. In 2004, CP+B was named the world’s most awarded agency, with wins that -- in addition to the Grand Prix at Cannes -- included the O’Toole Award for overall creative excellence from the American Association of Advertising Agencies, as well as the grand prize at the Clios, the Effies, the Kellys, the OBIEs, the APG Awards, and the One Show. The agency and its work have been profiled in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Business Week, Forbes, Fast Company, Time, and Newsweek. CP+B has been named Agency of the Year nine times by Advertising Age, Creativity, and ADWEEK and was named Agency of the Decade by Advertising Age in 2010. In addition, Chuck has been named one of Inc. magazine’s Entrepreneurs We Love.

Chuck grew up in Minneapolis and graduated from the Journalism School at the University of Minnesota. He is currently Chairman of the American Association of Advertising Agencies in New York, and serves on the board of the Future of Advertising Project at Wharton.

TED Conferences

TED2011, TED2009, TED2008

I'm passionate about

learning from history.

Comments & conversations

Noface
Charles Porter
Posted about 4 years ago
Do the creators of advertising have any obligation other than to drive results for clients?
Wow. I feel like I threw a pork chop into a pool of incredibly intelligent piranhas. I started this conversation because I perhaps saw one too many commercials that caused me to throw something at the TV. Griffin Tucker, in his response, expressed it a different way. I think the words were "a great hatred". The point I wanted to make was simple. If you're going to put something on the air that we all have to look at, put a little creativity and craft and intelligence into it. Don't just scream "buy one, get one free" for thirty seconds Naively, I thought this was a yes-or-no question. Instead, we've ended up with an exchange of some really interesting ideas ranging from the duties of an individual to society to the role of popular culture to who gets to decide what's good and bad anyway. James Walker was, I think, the first to respond. His comments have been unvaryingly intelligent and thoughtful and he is not someone I'd like to debate. His position, however, is that an ad maker has a responsibilty only to the client, and he uses the analogy that an architect's responsibly is also only to the client whose house he's designing. I think this is an apt analogy but it brings me to the opposite conclusion. I think an architect's FIRST responsibility is to the client, but I think there is also a responsibility to think about the effects -- aesthetically, environmentally, and otherwise -- that his or her creation will have on the community and the world. I fully expect to be intellectually trumped by James in the next 24 hours, but I'm okay with that. The fact is that this conversation has caused me to think way more deeply about this issue than I ever intended, and to re-examine what was, admittedly, a pretty simplistic position. And in the end, I guess that's the point.
Noface
Charles Porter
Posted about 4 years ago
Do the creators of advertising have any obligation other than to drive results for clients?
For what it’s worth, I think a lot of the responses have been really thoughtful and interesting. Everyone who’s joined this conversation is obviously smart and informed, so I’ll try to be as well. The view that an advertising agency has one job and one job only – to generate results for their client – is easy to take and easy to defend. By the same logic, though, a logging company’s only job is to cut down as many trees as possible and a sub-prime mortgage lender’s only job is to generate as many sub-prime mortgages as possible. Those positions are also widely held (although perhaps less so since the recent economic meltdown). I think the problem is that those ideas represent one-dimensional thinking in an increasingly multi-dimensional world. No realistic person would argue that ad makers should sacrifice effectiveness for entertainment. But advertising is a part of popular culture, for better or worse. And for ad makers to consider the effect of their work – whether it will be interesting and enhancing or just more noise – seems to me to be, at the risk of sounding like Martha Stewart, a good thing.