Non-Fiction

Not mentioned in this memoir is a November 29, 1984 NYT news article, published in the Advertising section of the NYT Business Section, with the headline: "Test Seeks Creative Talent." The article is by Phillip H. Dougherty, now deceased. He was the long-time advertising columnist of the NYT Business Section. Here is how this article opens, with an aexplanation to the reader of why the J. Walter Thompson has decided to distribute a "copywriting aptitude test to the masses - via advertising" -- from this article:

"DURING the 1970's, according to the high command of J. Walter Thompson, New York, about 90 percent of all TV commercials produced by the office were seriously copy-tested. In this decade, however, the figure is more like 30 percent, and even in that minority group the test results no longer create the frenetic go or no-go situation that existed a decade ago.

There is a whole new attitude around for the 80's, according to Stephen G. Bowen, executive vice president and general manager, and James B. Patterson, executive vice president and creative director. Entrepreneurship is back on the client side and feelings in the gut are being listened to once again.

The change in the business, the pair believe, is going to require a new breed of even more imaginative creative people. And that is why the agency has decided to distribute a copywriting aptitude test to the masses - via advertising. .."

In short, James Patterson has allegedly done some research, and research results show there is a "change in business" -- and thus, this "change in business" discovered by research is the rationale for publishing a full-page ad which is allegedly an aptitude test the next day in a full-page ad in the NYT.


-------

In Patterson's new memoir on pages 114-116, he gives a very different reason and rationale for publishing the upcoming full page ad to the public. The memoir makes no mention of any research. The memoir makes no mention of any "change in business."

Instead, the memoir says this on page 114:

-- "nobody very good wanted to work there" (at J. Walter Thompson creative department)
--"Necessity truly is the mother of invention"
--"here's what I decided to do about our personnel problems"

Patterson then mentions the full-page ad he published in the NYT.

--------------

Note the following: I have never in my life seen any ad agency publish an aptitude test as a print advertisement and invited
the public to respond by mail to allegedly compete for a copywriting job.

No one before Patterson ever did this to my knowledge, and no one since Patterson has ever done this to my knowledge.

I believe strongly, now, the reason ad agencies do not do this is because of the following facts:

Any ad agency is bombarded daily with letters, inquiries, phone calls, etc from creative people seeking work in a creative departent, whether as a copywriter, art director, producer. To advertise a full-page ad to the public is simply not necessary and
would only result in an incredible burden of responding to ever more inquiries.

In short, there was no actual legitimate reason for J. Walter Thompson to have published this full-page ad to the public.

Back in 1984, on the day before the ad was to appear in the NYT, Patterson gave that interview to DOugherty and claimed "research" and a "change in business" is the reason for the ad.

In 2022, in his memoir, Patterson makes no such claim.

-------
I believe now:

The ad was a scam, It was part of a stock fraud scheme, as J. Walter Thompson, a publicly held company, was seeking a way to generate positive news articles in the press, in the hope that such positive news articles -- about this full-page ad -- would lead to a demand for their stock.

In other words, people would seek to buy their chronically depressed stock because of this fake good news generated by the false ad.
(This is the same premises as a penny stock fraud scheme: Bombard a chat room with fake positive news about the stock to induce purchase of the stock.)

No one in the public had any chance whatsoever of getting a job in the creative department of J. Walter Thompson by mailing in a response to this full-page ad about to be published the next day in the NYT.

--------------------


From the Nov 29th, 1984 NYT article, written by Dougherty, here is another except:

After all the work and all the talk, it was surprising to hear Mr. Patterson say he would be content if the novel test resulted in only two new writers, and would be delighted with four. Mr. Bowen, who is in charge of the bottom line, was a little more magnanimous, suggesting that he could accommodate 15 or so.

So, to repeat: In 1984 James Patterson says to the NYT he intends to hire: 2 to 4 new copywriters. (Bowen actually has no authority to hire any creative people as Bown is on the account, not the creeative side, of advertising.)

The full-page ad omits disclosing how many new copywriters will be hired.

But "2 to 4" new copywriters is not what Patterson says in his 2022 memoir. In his 2022 memoir, Patterson claims on page 115:

"we hired over fifty writers"

---------------------------

To sum up:

Why is this ad being published?
--Research (1984) vs personnel problems (2022 memoir)

How many writers will be hired?
--2 to 4 copywriters (1984 news article by Phil Dougherty) verses 50+ writers (2022 memoir)

---------------------------------

It was easy for Patterson to hire "2 to 4" copywriters - and pass them off to the press as the ones from the public who responded to the ad.

2 of the 4 new copywriters were students -- seniors at Yale University at the time, set to graduate in 1985. And I believe, may have been told to respond to the ad by a teacher or parent who was contacted by one of Patterson's handlers -- and, that young person have had no knowledge whatsoever that this was a fake ad and a stock fraud scheme.

So when those 2 mailed in responses arrived to Patterson - as Patterson put his name on this fake ad and said mail it in to him -
those 2 got jobs.

A 3rd person who got a job was the son of a Republican COunty Chair person, and this young man was a national frisbee champion or some such thing, who apparently later left advertising and became a teacher. It is not difficult for Patterson's handlers to contact a local NY GOP County Chair that a job for his son awaits at JWT.

The 4th person who was heavily promoted in the press as being hired from the ad was actually: already an employee of JWT.
He was told by Patterson to complete a response. Obviously this employee did not need to "mail in" a response.

So there you have the "4" people hired - 2 Yale students, 1 GOP Chair's son, and 1 person already employed as a copywriter at JWT.
Patterson said he would hire "4" - well, here are people with copywriting jobs at JWT. Each one of them completed the aptitude test. Probably 2 of them have no idea they are recruited at Yale to submit a response because before they wrote a word they had this job.

But what happened to the thousands - and I mean thousands and thousands - of other people in the public who responded to this ad?

Well, their mailed-in responses were unopened by Patterson. They were on a "different track."

According to what Patterson's secretary, whose name was published in late1985 in the NY Daily News told me, Patterson came to her office, carrying loads of unopened mail. (The responses to the full-page ad.)

He dumped these on her desk. He said, "Open these. Read the response. Then send out a rejection letter."

So, this woman had to open the mail-in responses, and read thousands and thousands of mailed-in responses from the public, and then automatically send each person a rejection letter.

She had never seen the full-page ad. This is what she told me. She had no idea what she was reading or why. This is what she told me. She just did what her boss, James Patterson, told her to do.

She was being exploited. The public was being exploited.

And no one in the public - none of the 5,000+ people who mailed in a response - ever knew this was a scam, They thought: someone with hiring authority is reading my response, and maybe I will get a job based on my demonstrated writing skill.

But that is not what was happening. No one with hiring authority ever read their response - despite the fact this benefit was promised to all in the ad.

------------

IN my opinion, Patterson should be prosecuted, now, for the theft of property of these thousands of consumers, because there was no deadline to respond to this ad published in the ad or anywhere else. Obtaining property of others under false pretenses is called theft as far as I know. Patterson is THE individual who approved this ad, and, I believe, he wrote the "aptitude" test. He is the advertiser. And he is guilty of a job scam and guilty of theft resulting from this fake ad he knew was fake at the time he approved it and began promoting it to the press.

That is my belief.

Yes, he can sue me for defamation if he wants, but -- what I am saying here is true.

And, there is no defamation if what a person is writing is true.

I believe others know I am writing the truth here.