Everyone is doing it, you should too!

I find it interesting how the ad/marketing community plays "follow the leader," shifting their thinking towards what the "industry thinks" rather than realistic planning. Has anyone thought about the end user and asked if consumers really care, or is the idea of "virgin marketing" more important? Are marketers falling for their own marketing? I'm reading story after story
about how the "entire industry" is making moves towards web content, but as of yet, no one has seen any real and definable ROI, and I wonder if they will. Sure there are some isolated successes which drive the hype machine, but can the money being spent on web migration make it viable? Is it the future, or just more hype being swallowed by a confused industry? Because one company wasted 1.6 billion, does that justify everyone else in following with the false hope of what the future brings? This all reminds me of how everyone quit their job in the nineties to become website designers because the "industry" said that was the future too. We were all going to have a website and that would become the "future of how business is done." Those folks have since found real jobs again after that hype-bubble burst.

YouTube gets plenty of visits, but are those visits something that we can turn into a viable market or are those "youtubers" just looking for the outrageous and "different" on a site that does what conventional TV can not and should not do?

YouTube is not unique. Ebaumsworld.com did the same thing a few years ago, offering all sorts of video posted by anyone who had the time, and it grew to millions of hits a month. The only difference between the two was that YouTube caught the hype wave. A visit to YouTube shows lots of visitors, primarily to any clip that has the word "sexy" in the title or any clip that shows someone getting injured or worse. Let's not confuse 30 second video clips with television programming. It is not!

I will not deny that some of the promotional postings by the TV networks get sometimes thousands of hits on YouTube. Why shouldn't they? It's a novel idea. But with viewer comments to these postings such as, "Thanks for posting this clip, now I know not to watch the TV program," it seems to me marketers are selling nothing more than the same ideas in a freshly painted room. YouTube works the way it is, but once the pop-ups, ad banners, and
conventional TV appear, will the 'viewers' still come? The industry may be moving with full steam to find their place on the web, but I actually see it as the second time they are trying this. The last time, it failed too. I think the industry needs to figure out how to invest in quality products and stop substituting marketing for their lack of viable content. That's why we
called television the BoobTube in the first place. And now we are just going
to call it YouTube.

Yea, but the message is clear

I often complain that the ad industry as a whole lost it's way some time ago. "Someone" a long time ago complained that consumers were tuning out. Perhaps they were, or maybe they were not. No one really proved it, they merely made a guess, and the rest of the industry believed them. The advertising world got scared and ran. It ran hard and fast by dropping the most important part of advertising, and concentrating instead on fluff, creativity, cool visuals, lots of editing, in other words it joined the MTV generation. I often look at old commercial spots from the 50's, 60's, and 70's thanks to Ira Gallen. Spend an hour looking at those ads and you will see ads that give a clear message- they sell a product or service. Fast forward to what you see on TV today in the form of ads and it looks like Mel Brookes was given a job at an agency. Spots today are all about being funny, or being cool, or being the first to use some sort of special effect or other eye-stimulating gimmick. And what was given up for this? Selling the product. Basically most spots today are about anything but what has always effectively sold a product or service -a simple message. I know, you think I'm harsh. Of course not every commercial is bad, but many campaigns sure are. Examples are such as the latest Jeep campaign which has animals mistaking Jeeps for road kill, or a meal. Or how about Dr. Z. That campaign needs an ambulance. Or how about the Gap's long term attitude of acting cool. Too bad the company hasn't sold enough clothing to get it out of the stinker in ten years. Yet they pour tons of money into these campaigns because someone "thinks' abstract branding is a guarantee for success.

How many times have I heard how history is the key to the future? Lot's. Everyone says to see what the future holds, you have to look at the past. The advertising industry needs to learn this. Someone ought to buy one of Ira Gallen's greatest hits commercial videos from the old days of advertising. Sure they will see old spots, mostly in black and white. Spots where women's hair curls up at the end like Marlo Thomas in "That Girl". And spots where men are white and wear wool suits and hats. Ok, the style is old. Fashion has changed, as has political correctness, but one thing they will see that has never changed, universal truth. What's universal truth? It is a way of communicating an idea that anyone in any culture can understand, regardless of what language they speak. In simplest terms, like those universal signs for men and women that tell you which bathroom to go into. If you spent any time watching old TV spots you'll notice you actually remember the message. You might even sign the jingle. Odds are good, you'd know what the product does. In fact watch one of Ira's tapes, then watch TV from today and then tomorrow tell me which one you remember most?

And that brings me to what I realized is actually one of the most effective genres of advertising out there, pharmaceutical advertising. You think I'm kidding? Of course your response is how annoying those ads are. How could I possibly say they are effective? Ask your doctor! No that is not a joke. Ask! If you do, he will be mad. Mad because every patient that comes in says they saw some drug advertised on TV and want to know how to get it. Advertising doesn't get any more effective than that. Those ads, which are regulated must follow a simple rule; tell us what the drug is and what it does. And that is what they do. If it wasn't for regulations, some of those ads might end up like the rest of advertising, images, colors, music, but no clear message. It's what the industry calls an "award winning ad", but awards and success are two different animals in advertising. Advertising with a message is not a new idea. Watch any of the old commercials I told you about and you'll see they do the same thing. They give a simple but effective message. They actually are effective like pharmaceutical ads.

WAIT A MINUTE!

The Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park found that 70% of adults learn little or nothing from such ads about the health condition in question. In addition, almost 60 percent of adults say they learn little or nothing about the drug itself. But...here comes the important part. The same survey finds that one third of respondents have asked their doctor about prescription drugs they saw advertised, and 40% of those same respondents say they plan to talk with their doctor about the health condition cited in the ad.

WOW!!!!

Talk about ROI! Is there any better form of advertising.. a simple message and a call to action? But what about the fact that the survey above found that 70% of adults learn little or nothing from such ads and 60% of adults say they learn little or nothing about the drug itself? Who says you are going to be able to teach that much in 30 seconds. The message in those ads is clear. The idea of the spots is to get you to ask more. They introduce the drug, and say "ask your doctor". It's a simple message, and it works. PERIOD! Now if only much of the rest of the advertising world could figure out how to make a simple, but effective message too. It might justify the millions of dollars wasted on horrendous campaigns. People are more sophisticated you say? I say ask your doctor. He'll tell you those spots work too well. Sophistication not necessary, just a good message.

Come to think of it, the fact that anyone you speak to will tell you those ads are annoying means they got through.

They Must Be Kidding?

I keep wiping my eyes, but again and again it reads the same. I guess I can relate the current world of advertising to physicians. Try to question a physician and he'll either abruptly cancel the limited time you waited 40 minutes to spend with him, or he'll breath down your back like a dragon, shaming you for being born and daring to question his expertise. Try to tell someone in one of the 'big agencies" that an ad they produced does little for you and probably little for the product, and even that they might be out of touch with advertising, and you'll find the same result. I know I do it to friends in agencies all the time. Just today I was talking to a CD from one of the "big" agencies. I asked her how things are. She said she was "busy working on branding for a big company, you know". It wasn't what she said as much as how she said it. As if she had all the answers. Yes, it seems like the huge head that the advertising got somewhere in the early eighties is so big as to be out of control.

Advertising lost its way back then when someone came up with the notion that it's not really about the client, but about "creativity", or so they thought. We even have a trade magazine which spends many pages a month oozing with praise for 'creativity'. It usually contains some hip picture of a 30 something with spikish hair, some cool color behind them, "downtown" cloths, and a rather strange look on the subjects face as if saying "Yea, that's me. I'm creative! ". And wouldn't you know it, that trade magazine is called "Creativity".

Once you change your attitude and worry about creativity, it means little things like selling the product or service and even doing something to further your clients business go out the door. Why? How can you have any time for a client when all you are worried about is making the latest, greatest spot. A spot that folks will all remember. The greatest commercial of all time! Of course they will remember the spot, but not the product you are trying to sell. Oh they'll remember the sock puppet, or the cute animated frogs, and the German Dr. who sells cars, or the screaming Puerto Rican men drunk on your beer, but 40 seconds after seeing it, they will not remember the most important thing, something you got paid to convey. It's as if some sort of subliminal frequency was put in the audio portion of the spot that blocks the viewers recollection of what you are trying to sell, they will not remember much else. And why should they? The conglomerate companies that we still call ad agencies have shifted their focus to winning awards and getting peer recognition, and from a business perspective, getting accounts not return on the investment. It's like some Greek tragedy about narcissism gone wild.

Today I saw an article on the Ad Age website. It's a story about how Walmart is going after the Hispanic market. And on that web page the word 'award' appeared no less than 16 times. It had nothing to do with the article. It was links to everything you needed to know about awards for creativity below the article. Check this out. There were links to "What the Hispanic Ad Awards Say About the Market", "Awards Photo Page Two", "Awards Photo Page One- Cocktails at Miami's Gusman", "Multimedia Awards", "Out of Home Awards", "Direct Marketing Awards", "Hispanic Creative Advertising Award Winners 2006", "Meet The Judges of this Years Awards", "Photos From the Awards Judging Sessions", "TV Gold Awards", "Non Traditional Awards"," Interactive Awards", "Newspaper Awards", "Radio Awards", "TV Bronze Awards", oh yea, and a link for "Report From the Hispanic Awards Ceremony". They added that last story because the earlier links; "What the Hispanic Ad Awards Say About the Market", and "Hispanic Creative Advertising Award Winners", couldn't write enough about the Hispanic awards. Anything with the term "Hispanic" these days translates to meaning, 'it's the future', because someone started a Hispanic steamroll by writing an article once that said the Spanish market was undeserved so they cover it all even more than they should. There are a bunch of these guys and gals out there; "marketing/ad experts" who write the fodder that is fiction but somehow becomes fact. I can think of a well known name who writes for one of the trades. His articles always have two elements, first some concocted conclusion about the future of advertising or marketing that never ends up true, and a pitch as to how he and his company are the only ones to help you figure it all out. And folks listen to these people, falling for the same marketing methods that I thought they would see, understand, and be able to rise above.

Wow imagine, one page on Ad Ages site with 16 references to the awards you too could win with a 3/4 inch videotape and $ to enter. And strangely I would have thought more Ad Age articles would be about successful campaigns. I know, someone told you that winning an award means you have a successful campaign. And there my friend you have the core of the ills that face the advertising industry. I think the best analogy to the big heads in advertising is the traditional Advertising weeks close where they march a motorcade of brand icons through Times Square. I love how Ad Age states it gives "throngs of camera-toting tourists an unexpected treat" as if it is some sort of amazing branding parade. No, it's just a bunch of hot air balloons, a perfect synopsis of the ad industry as a whole and a reflection os what most advertising is these days, old icons, with little idea of what made them icons or how to recreate that brand successfully today.

It's not Ad Ages fault. Ad Age and all the other industry trades are reflections of the industry. But they sure do reveal how dysfunctional the industry is as a whole. No, not everyone and every company is a candidate for an advertising industry reality program. There are some great things out there. But watch TV one evening and you will not use up the fingers on one hand counting what is effective. Fix it? No, it's easier to say that other forms of entertainment are the problem. Or diffuse the situation because now your clients want accountability. Or say that TIVO is at fault. Sorry folks, it ain't TIVO (in avery small portion of US homes) and it ain't other forms of media stealing your steam. Your sounding like the newspaper industry that is blaming the same things for the decline in newspaper readership. They did it to themselves to and that started in 1970!

But let's see some more ad industry hot air. How about Advertising Week 2006? What a program! Start off with a lot of hot air coming out of an accidental billionaire named Mark Cuban who suffers from Donald Trump Syndrome, defined as thinking you are something you are not and convincing everyone else that you are. He speaks at lots of things (like Trump), in all sorts of fields from advertising to gaming, to filmmaking but has little real knowledge of any of it, just an opinion like you or I. Oh and he's got a billion dollars he accidentally earned which automatically gives him some sort of credence in the mind of the masses. And somehow folks believe he actually has something to say that affects them or means anything. Money will do that to you. In addition to Cuban, sprinkle in an interview with Harvey Weinstein where he blows more air about how he didn't make that extra million dollars in his gazzilion deals. Then if it isn't exciting enough, add that "rare" candid interview with John Wren. And what success did he speak about? His life growing up and life leading up to Omnicom, where success is measured in how many clients you can obtain and how much growth your company can muster each year. Add to that Mr. Doug Dobie, who is looking for more ad revenue for his mobile phone company and who pleaded for more episodic television to show on his little one inch screens. Yep, someone actually believes real television viewing is headed to your cell phone too. But if you owned a cell phone company, you'd think that too. I remember a few years back when all the "experts" said that the web was coming to your phone. I see the other day ESPN folded up their cell phone service , the same one the "experts" said was going to shape the future of mobile sports. It was "surefire hit".

And how could we forget one of the highlights of Adweek, the 'waffle off' with Martha Stewart against the head of BBDO which played more like one of those very poorly produced corporate videos we've all had to watch. What a setting they had the event in. It looked like a sample display case in Color Tile. Best of all Mr. Robertson admitted that his waffle had a lot of hot air in it. Hot air? I'm not kidding. He actually said "my waffle has a lot of hot air in it". Is he admitting something about the industry and using a waffle as a symbol for that problem? Interesting! I think they should change the name for Ad Week to "I Week" because the ad industry as a whole is lost in its own sputum. Or using the waffle analogy, the ad industry is like one of those frozen waffles. You take it out of the freezer and toast it. Then you pour that sweet sugary maple syrup on it. It sure looks good. But one taste and you know what it's like to lick the walls of your freezer.

Next time I will tell you what needs to be done to correct the ills of the advertising industry.