Search results matching tag 'Advertising Age'

Why Cannes and TV advertising doesn't matter

255762 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:56:00 GMT

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

People will pay for content, says PwC

255762 — Tue, 12 May 2009 11:19:00 GMT

That's what PricewaterhouseCoopes says in its 'Outlook for Newspaper Publishing in the Digital Age' report out today.

The report looks at how the newspaper industry can face up to the structural challenges that have seen paid for titles lose circulation volume while advertisers have been moving online.

The top line findings from its research shows mostly importantly two points that applies across the online publishing world and not simply to newspapers.

Consumers will pay for content - News as commodity - Consumers see breaking news and general interest news as commodities, but there is always a market for high value online content in specific topics. Our consumer research indicates that consumers are willing to pay for this content, but newspapers need to develop strategies for monetising their content and intellectual capital.

Niche Niche Niche - Niche audiences continue to demand specialised, targeted and relevant information. This creates both an opportunity for advertisers to reach their consumers and for newspapers to develop 'hyper-local' or 'local-local' sites addressing content at the neighborhood and suburban level. This is particularly prevalent in the USA.

This supports what people have been talking about this last week, which I have been blogging about and what seems to be the new consensus: that you can (as some still do) charge for B2B and specialist content (as Carolyn McCall highlighted last week) as this is content that people can not get elsewhere.

Here are PwC's other key points which point to the huge role that print still has to play in the future of newspapers (again I think this applies pretty well to magazines as well). This role has become ever more apparent as the print pounds have translated to digital pennies.

Revenue remain with print - Although there is a huge potential for growth online, print remains the largest source of revenue generation for newspaper publishers, and will continue to be so for some time.

The future is longterm - Newspapers have a long-term future and will coexist with other media. However this is unlikely to be either in the formats or volumes seen today and there will some casualties and losses of well-known papers along the way.

Where the value is - Consumers place high value on the deep insight and analysis provided by journalists over and above general or breaking news stories.

Trust and loyalty - Newspapers have been able to earn their readers' trust and loyalty, giving them the opportunity to both lead and follow audiences as they migrate online and into the use of portable electronic media. Indeed, with the core principles of deep analysis and trusted editorial, the medium is secondary to the brand.

Multimedia - Use of video in online news sites gives the feel of a ‘TV-like’ experience (consumers’ favourite medium for news) giving newspaper brands the opportunity to secure online audiences beyond their print readership and into the television audience more generally.

New business models - Newspaper publishers have responded to the economic downturn by increasing their focus on cost reduction. Many are also using multiple platforms and new technologies as channels for content distribution in order to reach their audiences. However, many have still to fully review their existing business models to take full advantage of the innovation in the marketplace and the demands of consumers.

The mobile internet - The rapid adoption of the internet and mobile technology have created a market for mobile devices – particularly for the 'net generation', those under 35 in age. Though the devices give immediate access to breaking news and information, they are low on the list of preferences for accessing information due to the difficulty of reading content on the devices.

Innovative advertising packages - Shift For advertisers, access to mass markets remains key, so major newspaper brands with large loyal customer bases will be high on the spending plans of advertisers. The overall shift from print to online will continue however, so newspaper publishers must continue to develop innovative advertising packages combining both print and online to secure the advertising spend for their brands.

PwC's key questions for publishers as they look to the future:

Is your brand identity clear - both internally and externally - and focused on what differentiates you from your competitors?
Are print and new media run as separate operations or as simply two different distribution mechanisms for the same core activity?
Do you have an integrated paper and online advertising sales team?
Are you using online to extend your core audience beyond the traditional print readership?
Will video journalism and print journalism co-exist online?
What does your audience want from you - and do you know what they will pay for?
Can areas of non-differentiation be outsourced?
Have you identified non-core activities that should be downsized or stopped?
Are you investing today with?

You can read the full report here:

There was this also out from PricewaterhouseCoopers looking more at insolvency, but some interesting bits particularly liked its interesting turn of phrase where it says that "the internet has turned into a burden not a prize" for some media companies.

Clearly here PwC is talking about the large scale investment in digital that has not brought anything like the return hoped for as all those print pounds are traded for digital pennies.

The consultancy firm says that digital assets that were acquired as an option for future gain will move down, if not off, the priority list and for some the internet has turned into a burden not a prize.

However, it does see opportunities ahead "for those who provide a great experience based on quality content accessible across a range of devices". I'm guessing this is more than about the development of a pretty iPhone app.

For publishers, the report goes on to say that their trajectory has been only marginally impacted by the recent downturn (with a 40% rise in insolvencies since Q1 2008) and instead has been hit far harder by the structural challenge of consumption moving to online models than by the recession itself.

David Lancefield, partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, said: "The move towards Digital Britain could exasperate this trend even further unless publishers can shift their focus to new operating models."

Elsewhere in the report, it gives a familiar grim view of the advertising market and says insolvencies are rocketing (now doubling pre-credit crunch levels) with nearly 70 ad agencies registering insolvent in Q1 2009 - 62% higher than this time last year.

But again there is some online brightness. It says that while traditional media advertising is in double digit decline, online advertising is offering some glimmer of hope.

While it agrees that consumers are being careful about where they spend their money (whether on subscriptions, downloads or events), it says the structural change from analogue to digital distribution and offline to online migration present a significant threat but also opportunity.

"With consumer confidence at its lowest, the country turned a corner into a technical recession early 2009 – this shift was reflected in the advertising industry, as a third more agencies became insolvent than in the previous quarter. Last year represented the advertising world’s Big Bang, as we saw a collision of severe economic downturn and structural change to online. In this world, grabbing and monetising consumer attention is harder than ever," Lancefield said.

Follow me on Twitter

Is the advertising industry homophobic?

255762 — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:02:00 GMT

It's the question of the year. Today there is a guy with a funny walk being shot at by Mr T in a 4x4. Before that it was Nike and its Dunkin' ad. Bob Garfield has got so fired up he wrote a letter about it to John Wren. Is it a storm in a tea-cup?

Today we are talking about the Mr T Ad who shoots Snicker bars at a guy speed walking through suburban America.

Is it gay bashing? OK, he has a funny walk, but really it is difficult to speed walk without wiggling your hips a bit. It doesn't mean you're gay or that gay people walk funny. It just means you are a speed walker.

Mr T attacks him because he is walking and not pounding the streets like a runner. He says he pities him and that he is a disgrace to the man race? See nothing much to get worked up about. Besides Mr T is a solid wall of testosterone. It was the Mekong Delta that made him that way.

The campaign is jokey and some might say cruel and violent. It could also be seen to encouraging bullying, but I don't think it is.

The scenario depicted in the AMV London ad is clearly humorous and is part of a long-running campaign that, from its conception, has put humour at its heart, delivered via the booming megaphone voice of mockery that is Mr T. It is knockabout fun, it really is. How can something that fires chocolate bars be anything else?

Bob Garfield at Advertising Age got himself worked into a huge lather and took it upon himself to write an open letter to Omnicom CEO John Wren. He argued that the latest Snickers ad follows a trend coming out of Omnicom-owned agencies that is essentially gay bashing.

In the case for the prosecution he begins by citing a two year old ad from BBDO Detroit for Dodge Caliber, which featured a tough guy snorting the words "silly little fairy" at a Tinkerbell-like pixie. It was part of a long running "Anything but cute campaign".

Again it is funny and the pixie gets the last laugh. I liked it, I liked the focus group one as well.

The pixie in the ad I hasten to mention is not a lipstick ***, just a stand-up, run-of-the-mill, Lord of the Rings-type pixie who wants to turn the world into a toy box wonderland land, which means there is no place for the secret service-like black suburban vehicle.

Garfield then cites another Omnicom spot, this time from TBWA, New York. It is also for Snickers and was its Super Bowl spot. In this one, two mechanics chew on the opposite ends of a Snickers bar until their lips meet in an accidental kiss.

"Quick do something manly" and they both rip chest hair from their bodies. It's quite funny. It isn't laugh-out-loud funny as you can see the joke coming a mile away, because the set-up is lame playing on the general dislike straight Anglo Saxon men have for kissing other men. I mean that's fair enough, we're not French. Bob should get that.

Garfield even admitted the ad while "wasn't exactly homophobic" he said it was about homophobia and "men's deepest sexual fears about themselves".

Worse, Garfield said, was the Mr T ad. "The sentiment behind it is simply sick. John [Wren]: three Omnicom agencies, three outrages. It is time for you to intervene".

He goes on in his open letter to Wren to ask how he can be "so insensitive, how could you be so shallow, and how could you be so mean?

"Stop the dehumanizing stereotypes. Stop the jokey violence. There is no place in advertising for cruelty. Pull the campaign. Do it now. Then tell your agencies how to behave. Or else."

I think Wren will be resting easy. The ads Garfield talks about are mixed humour wise, but homophobic they are not. The Garfield Gaybashometer needs to be retuned and to get a sense of humour. No one was hurt in the making of those ads, not even the little pixie. Her message was don't mess with me as I will turn you into a preppie. That's a harsh punishment to deal on anyone. So don't mess with the pixie/fairy. Whatever.

Coincidentally the criticism of these ads comes as Nike pulls an ad that has been accused of sending out anti-gay messages.

The controversy broke last week when ads for Nike's new Hyperdunk basketball shoes broke and someone at Nick Denton's New York media blog gawker.com asked the question: does "Nike hate gays? Or do gays hate basketball.

The ads concerned as you can see features basketball players getting dunked in apparently what is considered the worst way possible with the dunker dangling off the rim and his undercarriage in the face of the dunkee.

I'll have to take Gawker's word for it that this is bad as I know nothing about the world of basketball.

The Gawker piece strikes me of being guilty of the same thing that Garfield is guilty of and that is reading too much into the ad. The blogger concerned even writes leaving aside my unrelated general hatred of Nike". Well, I'm not sure we can.

In the case of the Nike ad sport is a fast, sweaty and occasionally painful business. Bodies crash into one another and like all things in life someone always ends up on top whether you are dunkin a basket ball, sliding into home or scoring a goal. It's a sweaty scramble. Anti gay? Well I wouldn't want to have someone's balls in my face, but then I don't get a hard on thinking about scoring a basket. No hoop dreams here.

Gawker argues that the campaign with its lines "That Aint right" is based on the implacable homophobia of straight jocks. "That can't be denied".

No probably not, but that isn't the point. Who, gay or straight, wants someone else's balls in their face?

Alas Wendy's

255762 — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:56:02 GMT

For a moment it looked like McCann Erickson had held onto the $400m Wendy's account.

Sadly, clearly proving that fast food is really bad for you this was just a sub-editor's error over Advertising Age, which sent out this breaking news at 18:23.

Wendy's $400 Million Creative Account Goes to McCann Erickson Unclear if Media Buying and Planning Will Also Move

By 18:46 it was all change as the US magazine had a change of heart and sent out this breaking news instead.

Wendy's $400 Million Creative Account Goes to Saatchi & Saatchi Unclear if Media Buying and Planning Will Also Move

New York (AdAge.com) -- Wendy's is moving its $400 million creative account from Interpublic's McCann Erickson to Publicis Groupe's Saatchi & Saatchi, according to executives familiar with the situation. It was unclear if media buying and planning, now at Universal McCann, will also move. The agencies either couldn't be reached or referred calls to the marketer. Wendy's CMO Ian Rowden declined to comment.