Rupert Murdoch isn't a man fearful of competition. Indeed his business is grateful for it, as the man in Cannes announced, whilst neatly shooting across the bows of Facebook with a 'flavour of the month' barb. (Admittedly, for quite a few months now). As budgets get tighter, the competition will hot up from an advertising perspective regarding comparative media value, but the social computing trend continues to grow and develop depending on the usefulness of the environments and the 'free' media exposure from search and social applications remains the biggest threat. We need to reach eyeballs with messaging, but applications (widgets and so on) whilst still relatively small in terms of uptake, provide good return in terms of time spent with a brand or usefulness. I was reminded yesterday of the David Ogilvy comment paraphrased as - don't allow your consumer to enjoy the ad too much as he may remember it but not what it's for - in the case of applications that live in social media environments, it's pretty clear who it's for and why it's useful. If we can link them to sales, even better.
no comments
As any skilled online advertiser will tell you, the smart money is on the ability to measure and optimise activities on the fly. Does this mean that a lot of dumb money goes into random display? I guess there must be another award ceremony for search going on somewhere else, because it’s not getting much airtime on the Croisette.
When we pitched a major mobile operator last year, the online advertising investment (display/search/affiliates) was 40 30 30 in terms of cost, but 20 50 30 in term of effectiveness. I thought afterwards that we should really have looked into this as a primary problem, rather than get tied up in the creative discussion about how best to present the brand offers without resorting to even more template wallpaper. Spend more on search, I said. Spend less on offers, more on engagement.
Pondering this today through a mild reality distorting field of haircuts shouting loudly in the Martinez bar, it occurred to me that we only celebrate display, and not search. We don’t think enough about the intelligence required to serve ads to people looking for something they want. I love the idea of advertising that isn’t advertising. I love the idea of search that isn’t search even more. And what’s the end game for all this as we start the probably impossible journey to reducing wastage in advertising from 99% to nil?
Through my reality distortion field, I imagined receiving stuff I wanted all the time. Some sort of magical CRM world, where my bank offered to reduce my mortgage, crème brulée would arrive endlessly and I could spend the whole day seeing no advertising at all. Would it be hell or would I crave some distraction of a bright and breezy display ad for something I didn’t want? As Joni Mitchell sang, you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone. I think I would miss it.
We mustn’t let the good intention of metrics eradicate the magic of invention and entertainment. But we must adopt more intelligent ways to advise clients on whether the work is actually any good or not. We have to help clients sell stuff. Every skilled online advertiser will tell you that.
Looking forward to our seminar at Cannes today - we'll have Facebook, MySpace, Intel and Blyk (the mobile platform) in a panel discussion working out whether brands can be friends and what form of advertising (that isn't really advertising anymore) will evolve to be relevant, engaging and deliver new results in an always on connected world. I expect some powerful discussion and ideas for what brands should do to live well in the new space. Social media users do actually watch less TV. From their digital experiences, they want relevant stuff. They love free stuff. They don't want to hear from you, unless you've been asked. They crave community. They want to belong. But they want to belong on their own terms. Of course this isn't new. These are anthropological norms. The difference is the technology, the tools and the enabling attitudes of these enlightened businesses. When they provide real value to enormous communities, the value of other more classical media properties diminishes.
Mark Twain once wrote, upon reading his own obituary, that reports of his death were exaggerated. Here we are in Cannes, and the Cyberlion judging president now predicts the death of the category, no less. I think what she means is that because so much work is valid across categories, there is room to lose one or two of the categories. Last year, there was considerable blending of the promo and direct work, and this year there is much expectation that plenty of work demonstrates cross media effectiveness. It’s true that there is far more blurring around the edges of discipline centric awards than ever, but I think she has mistakenly created a rod for her own back.
If she genuinely believes that the Agencies can be idea neutral (in the way that they claim media neutrality), she is deluding herself. We’re all too familiar with the bunfights over owning creative leadership between Agencies, and the need for a better way. I think the industry still has a way to go, and is in need of some restructuring. Obviously I wouldn’t want to be running a TV centric creative Agency today, not because TV is no longer the medium of choice for today’s media literate consumer, as this is not actually always true, but because Clients demand Agencies that can genuinely think about more than one medium in developing brand properties.
As we move more and more towards platforms and technology-based platforms, we need the Cyberlions all the more, to seek out innovation and challenge the status quo, and invent and grow the brand propositions that will succeed in the digital world. A gardening analogy struck me - somehow TV ads are pretty flowers that occasionally get picked and stuck in a vase for a bit, but digital platforms that are long term and never ending are more like trees. They have the potential to grow to be very tall and strong. I’d rather be doing trees than flowers, wouldn’t you?
The range of content at Cannes next week is extraordinary. Obviously our own event on Tuesday with Facebook, MySpace and Intel will be brilliant, but I wonder whether the industry is about to explode with ‘issues overload’?
Metrics; magic; big ideas; TV obituaries; agency models for the future; new Russian advertising; will the Chinese believe anyone who isn’t Chinese; can a brand really be a friend? Is it all about telling a story? Even the word 'new' qualifies for evaluation.
I originally got into this business because people in it told me that it was full of bright and interesting people who were clever at invention. It still is, but there just aren’t as many of them as there used to be (see Rory Sutherland’s blog passim). I also discovered that the industry was, in fact, rather more clever at reinvention. That’s why, every other week in Campaign, there’s a “preferred the idea when we did it” letter from some disgruntled wag or other. Cadbury’s Crème Egg is the latest one for me - we dressed Dom Joly up as a Peperami for the 1996 World Cup (Sam and Jason, now of The Red Brick Road fame may remember that campaign). We had great fun making the first Peperami websites - there's an example live here - an early web classic.
It was also genuinely new. Proper 'never been done before' stuff, and a privilege to work on too. I think that of late, so much of what is talked about is reinvented, rather than new. Digital technology is actually driving innovation, and working with imagination to change the way in which people communicate. For example, I'm interested in the social networks right now because they have developed technologies that enable new forms of communication, engagement and participation. We can't recycle ideas that depend on no feedback for success in these environments.
We can try harder to think of new ways to communicate, and challenge ourselves to break the habits of convention in our briefs and business process. I look forward to seeing what the great and the good of our industry have to say about this next week.
Off we go to Cannes, where ‘big ideas make you feel small’. It’s a curious world where the discussion is about inventing the new world, but we posture only with concepts of creativity from the old world.
Once upon a time, we only had a few channels, TV, press, outdoor and occasionally radio. Consumers had limited media, and plenty of attention to spare. Now, there is far too much media populated with far too many messages, and consumers have no attention left to give.
So what’s the problem? Is our industry predicated upon consumers wantonly giving their attention to our brand messages that have become increasingly expensive and ineffective? (Notwithstanding occasional bright spots that we shall see celebrated next week). Or is it that the celebrated ‘big idea’ is actually never quite that. More often than not we see executional fancy, and true originality lives in the wilderness, along with Mozart's grave and Banksy's spray can.
I argue that creativity is now required for a far broader canvas than ever. It’s true that we do see less effect for brands if we stick only to our old channels, and don’t organise ourselves better for the new world. This is why the internet is such a fabulous thing. Right now, it’s the medium people are paying attention to. It’s also far more than a media channel, it’s an interruptive technology that has changed the face and style of communications for ever.
Next week, I look forward to seeing the biggest ideas. I will be humbled. But I doubt if I'll be surprised by the number of ideas that look backwards rather than forwards in executional fancy.
Celebrities and the internet have strengthened their hold on young women, leaving little room for advertisers, teachers or politicians to influence their opinions and behaviour, according to a survey (by the Girl Guides, no less). Only 2% of those surveyed could name a female politician, and another 2% said they were influenced by advertisers. 42% claimed celebrities were their greatest influence, closely followed by the internet, outside of friends and family. Thank god for friends and family, then.
Mind you it would be safe to assume that a survey of politicians would get the same result. How many MPs would be able to name three female celebrities? Probably 2%. How many MPs would claim to be influenced by advertising? 2%? 3%? And how many MPs would claim to be influenced by what they read on the internet, or that they had been been influenced by their teachers?
MPs might have more in common with the average 16 year old girl than we think. Here’s what Girlguiding UK says. "Understanding how our members consume their news and form their opinions helps [us] support them in making the many different and difficult decisions [they] face today. Female friends play a very influential role in this process which is why our varied programme provided in a safe girl-only environment, is designed to help our young members develop confidence in their individual views and opinions -- giving them the self-assurance to make the best choices and decisions for them."
Now swap female for MP and see what happens.
"Understanding how our members consume their news and form their opinions helps [us] support them in making the many different and difficult decisions [they] face today. [Parliamentary] friends play a very influential role in this process which is why our varied programme provided in a safe [MP]-only environment, is designed to help our [old] members develop confidence in their individual views and opinions -- giving them the self-assurance to make the best choices and decisions for them."
Will we see Boris or Gordon with a rolled up copy of Smash Hits soon? Crikey.
Alastair Duncan
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 05 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 94
