As some in the advertising industry pack their ice bucket and Bollinger and head to Cannes International Ad Festival I can't remember a year when going has mattered less. It's like Big Brother this year, but even less important than that. Of course, this year it has become very fashion to rubbish Cannes, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to do so. Bob Garfield at Ad Age created a local weather front in the US the other week with his "Cannes Doesn't Matter Anymore... and Neither Do the TV Ads It Celebrates".Garfield slated Cannes in response to what he called an advertising black hole (with the notable exception of some Burger King work) before he asked what's the point?This moment of advertising irrelevance, and when I say that I'm talking really (as is everyone else) about TV advertising, has been creeping up on us for sometime. It is the elephant in the room.TV advertising as we all know is 99% undisputed annoying, repetitive crap. Banal and largely totally forgettable dirge that pollutes the world we live in as much as any oil slick.But worse than pollution, it is increasingly a waste of money as the effectiveness of TV advertising declines even faster than the reputation of your average banker.I was having this conversation last week at a lunch with Thinkbox boss Tess Alps. I said that basically I watch no television advertising anymore because I watch next to no live TV.If I am watching a recorded programme from commercial TV when it gets to the ad break I simply tap stop; hit play again and tap the time forward by five minutes. This is roughly the gap given over to the ad break plus any programme promos. It takes about three or four seconds and it is a far easier and quicker than watching TV whilst fast forward at x30. Frankly, I am surprised that everyone doesn't do this.But you can guarantee that if I do it plenty of others do it as well.What I also said to Tess though was that while this process relieves me from the pollution of a stream of retail, finance, detergent and car ads, I usually cannot avoid the top and tail programme sponsorships.In my mind these will increasingly become the most valuable item in the arsenal of many advertisers. I have a high recall of these and I can tell you of the two I saw last week are still stuck in my mind. Carpetright (sponsor of 'House' on Sky One) and BQ ('Property Snakes and Ladders'). In the first instance, Carpetright is I imagine some god awful place where carpet is sold. I could be wrong. In the second, B&Q I really don't mind so much. I have a Victorian house. It's not all that finished. I don't mind the B&Q thing. I would be in favour of the rules here being relaxed to allow them to pitch more products or little promos (sanding your floors – here's what to do). I digress kind of, Garfield wrote about the blah that ad men come out with. How they say it is not about TV or print or outdoor, but about the idea, which then begs the question why do you need to go to Cannes on some huge party jamboree to celebrate the work (and watch it while you're there).If you have ever been subjected to watching a few reels then after a not very long period you start to think either a) wow advertising is so powerful sometimes, I can really see that now; or b) kill me now I am so bored.The people who think a) or at least tell you they think the first option are doing so because its their job, they're lying, or they're living in a fantasy land fuelled by booze, drugs and trips to South Africa and New Zealand that help to make selling deodorant or 4x4 slightly more appealing. Gosh it sounds harsh when you put it that way.
It fell to David Lubars, chairman and chief creative officer of BBDO, to hit back at Garfield's assault and having watched it (on this Adage video) you can't help but ask is that it?
Lubars agreed that Garfield was a little right (he hadn't seen much decent work either) before going on to sound a bit like a dusty record. He said Cannes needed to evolve and "recognise the cool integrated things that are happening".He was probably referring to that digital stuff that everyone goes on about. Maybe he had been reading about Twitter. Who knows.Maybe Cannes needs to evolve or maybe you simply don't need it. I don't care either way particularly other than to say what it does most of (and what those who get most excited about) is the "film" part, the TV ads, which increasingly a) don't seem to cut it; and b) are increasingly irrelevant in a market that a lot of advertising agencies are struggling for relevance.
Follow me on Twitter
Do you remember that episode in Blackadder3, when he kept saying 'Macbeth' to the pair of superstitious actors, who are then forced to repeat a well-rehearsed ritual to neutralise the curse?
I'd like to ignore your provocation, because I know that you are - at least in part - having a laugh. I know because how could anyone possibly do your job and yet seemingly hate and avoid advertising and brands as much as you say you do? You told me you also block online ads too so it's not just TV.
I'm all for sceptical impartiality from journalists, but that would require you to be prepared to believe impartial evidence. I hear that BARB is considering ditching their extensive, rigorous and representative panel and replacing it with just you. Until they do we’ll have to make do with their data, which tells us that live broadcast TV - and the viewing of ads – is doing very well across all demographics and is at record levels, despite your militant avoidance.
So, if facts can’t persuade you of TV’s proven, unrivalled effectiveness I won’t repeat them. Water off a hack’s back. But I would direct any readers who would like to know the truth to take a look here: www.thinkbox.tv/.../nav.736.
Wind-ups can be fun, especially when you have such a responsive victim as me, but you do a massive disservice to your many readers who are proud to create TV advertising which delivers business success for their clients. Please don't give internet fundamentalists like Bob Garfield so much respect. When has he ever come up with an idea that has generated so much wealth as TV advertising? Yes, rather lame response from David Lubars but that's because journalists and internet gurus have tyrannised them into thinking they have to rubbish and abandon existing techniques in order to add on some of the new ones. Ask online brands where they are increasingly spending their marketing money if you want to know what actually works.
Lovely to see you last week and give my regards to Haringey.
Tess
Gordon's banner ad-blocking and TV ad avoidance isn't a provocation. It's common sense. And I've been doing it for years.
Partly, this is because most advertising (TV or online) is hopelessly awful and I'd rather not be assaulted by it. Mostly, however, I use these tools because I see my audience using them.
What I don't see is runners installing Nike+ blockers. Or New York schoolkids purchasing Million mobile phone jammers. And last time I checked, there's no demand for a TiVo equivalent that let's drivers skip past their Fiat eco:Drive menus. This is because people CHOOSE to engage with these branded technologies. They add value and are therefore invited to the party.
No one can claim that TV or banner advertising will go away anytime soon. But the fact that consumers are taking active, sometimes costly steps to avoid huge portions of our industry's output ought to prompt us to think more creatively about how to solve our clients' problems. Blocking out the banal, irritating and expected can only help us along.
I like good ads as much as the next person, but you're right it is all water off a hack’s back, true. I only wonder about the effectiveness of the majority rather than the exceptional few ads that really engage (with me at least).
Maybe it is a male thing, but I like, and i'm not sure what you'd call it, practical advertising. I like the idea of blipverts that Ofcom is talking about fr radio.
Or as i said more detailed sponsorship messages attached to relevant content, which must be why i like the Tesco every little helps campaign with their very sales led ads.
You are fitting the picture of ad avoider perfectly. About 15% of the population are determined ad avoiders - binning DM/inserts unopened, only lstening to BBC radio etc etc. But ad avoiders really like rational, practical commercial messages (It does exactly what it says on the tin, 10% off, Sale starts Wednesday etc). But the other 85% of us would much rather be entertained and engaged.
The world is changing. Consumers are empowered. Old methods have to move with the times or get left behind. The 4th element (technology) has challenged and changed what advertising is. Personally I think it's time awards moved to the web, was voted for by the mass creative village (not a few in a room in a hotel) and creativity was rewarded through mass approval real time not annually. What means more - 6 ad blokes saying your ad is good or 6000?
Another comment. Gordon is right, most ads are bad and a waste of clients money. While we sit there celebrating the 1% that win awards (judge by ourselves) who is trying to make the 99% great? If this was an other industry we'd be judged as much by our failing as as our success. Which is why the public think advertising is mainly rubbish. Lets not forget that most awarded agencies also contribute to that 99%.
Imagine life if we had no awards.
If every day we got up it was a grey sky.
If every night we went to be it was dark.
If leaves never fell off trees.
If some people didn't cheat.
If some didn't lie.
If some didn't steal.
It rains on the good and bad alike.
Some get flooded.
Some get drout.
Some get it all.
Some get nothing.
Life is not fair.
That's what makes it so exciting.
The great blessing is the fact that it rains at all.
Awards make rain in our industry.
They cause us to question, argue, debate.
They set the playing field for the future,
and if the players don't like it...
we all soon know about it.
I think that is worth preserving.
It kicks the kings off their plinths.
It unsettles the comfortable.
It makes us all think.
Consumer, Creator, Juror.
Is it right?
Is it wrong?
It gives us a conscience to judge ourselves by.
Pingback from ITV confirms forecast revenue losses (Mad.co.uk) at lumen
Gordon Macmillan
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 20 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 1,616
