Wow, that is a solid check to all of us thinking of ways to engage customers for the pure sake of getting them to propel our messages a little farther...maybe we should stick to straight entertainment and stop making customers work for the products?
So... Instead of ad agencies doing their jobs and coming up with a targeted messages to deliver to the consumers, we're going to suggest that people, with every day lives, do it for us. I know there are obvious benefits to this type of sourcing, but what about job security? And shouldn't we, as advertisers, be the brand advocates - paid to represent the brand?
Anonymous
August 20th, 2010, 8:14am
This letter matches up with the reasoning of our old friend The Ad Contrarian. While us creative people love innovative, cutting-edge, participatory advertising, the vast majority of people couldn't care less about engaging with marketers.
You are entirely too articulate and well-versed in industry lingo for me to believe a word of your story.
The pseudo-English-blue-collar schtick feels a little too contrived....................... go back to your copywriting job.
Cheers!
Marlow
Marlow (not verified)
August 20th, 2010, 8:41am
Agreed, yes, the only people who care to participate in this stuff or advertising in general is people who work in advertising. Sometimes ads can drive a pop culture--but I think the last ad that truly can be labeled as such is Cliff Freeman's 'Where's the beef." Nothing from CB+P ever met this mark--most all the hype there has been from within the industry. After all, Alex never really did anything new. Just followed the principles established by Bernbach, Ogilvy and others. It's just a new day now.
Anyway, as one of those people who work in the biz, this growing inward perspective had troubled me for years. So often we produce stuff that absolutely no "real" human being would have any interest in--clever for the sake of clever. Oh, and awards. And because no one really ties what we do to sales, or can, what's the value?
jaded (not verified)
August 20th, 2010, 8:44am
"but I think the last ad that truly can be labeled as such is Cliff Freeman's 'Where's the beef."
He's right. He's a target demographic. The cross-section that won't participate in making a video about sausage for a chance to win something or what ever. For him there's a TV spot, for his wife a print ad a popular woman's magazine and FSI, for his kids, a "kid" friendly spot during his children's Saturday morning cartoons.
For the other cross-section that will participate, there's a way to interact with the brand through video. And maybe even share it with like minded people. And maybe that video spreads, smooth like butter on that sausage's bun, across the internets. And maybe Brian, watches the video on YouTube and says, "I could have done that".
But Brian wouldn't know that because he feels the sausages are speaking directly to him. Which is a different problem all together.
yes, wazzup, indeed a gem. a rare one just the same. and if i remember correctly, the idea was that of the actors in the spot, not the ad agency. anyone remember more detail?
jaded (not verified)
August 20th, 2010, 9:00am
funny. i may not be the target demographic of anything, but i played get the glass for four hours and subservient chicken for days and kiss fight until i realized there was no way to beat that last broad.
i say keep it coming. just keep it fresh and fun.
from one brian to anther, we will try not to make you work too hard to understand the benefit of ground meats in tubes. but brother, the days of broadcasting RTBs and USPs are gone.
I say that this is more relevant where every day CPG brands are concerned. But I would beg to differ, if we are talking about lifestyle-related brands.
I agree with the first Brian, that when you're selling one of many of the bagillions of everyday products that fly through WalMart cash registers everyday, the strategy would ideally be more simple and direct (from my own personal consumer-perspective). I would never waste my precious time to do spec work for a mega-corporation in hopes that they might pick it and use it for an ad. Of course, general consumers don't know what "spec" work is - and for the consumers who participate, well, more power to the brands that compelled them to do it. However, I work in advertising, and I don't care about investing my precious time to help Johnsonville sell more brats. I don't sit there all day and play stupid interactive games. (Nor do I play Farmville or Yoville or Mafiaville on Facebook...)
Now, if you are talking about a brand that actually makes something that means something to me... something that liberates my spirit... gives me creative outlet... or provides a community of other passionate people that I can relate to... Whether it's automotive, shoes, apparel, skateboards, snowboards, snowmobiles, motorcycles, art supplies, outdoor adventure equipment, sunglasses, travel, etc... THEN you are speaking my language! Subsequently, these are the only types of brands that I aspire to work on... (and, God help me, hopefully I will get to continue to work on.)
Maybe I'm not a true "advertising professional", but more of a person who wants to pursue only the things that I'm passionate about... because, let's face it - LIFE IS SHORT, and Johnsonville doesn't need my help in making a few billion dollars more.
Follow your passions people. Good creative is good creative... but the true test of success, is in the metrics of the hearts and minds of your "target consumer". Winning awards and credits from other ad professionals and climbing the agency ladder might be what drives alot of you... but if you're being "creative" and pushing the bar for a brand that people really truly don't care about, then what is the true value of the work you're doing? (Especially when you consider how many hours we spend in doing creative work.)
Going back to Felix's rant about "It's just advertising"... Or the recent web phenomena of Bogusky's departure from the business. Let's put it all in context of this "bloke", and then think... "What are we really working for?"
(Pardon me for going off on a tangent that may be a departure from the subject of this post! In my mind, this is much more important.)
Cheers.
Jon Miller (not verified)
August 20th, 2010, 1:09pm
Damn, I must've been stressed out on Friday! haha!
I guess where I was going... is that I would call some of these brands "low-involvement", from a cost of entry, and a disposability perspective.
Why would low-involvement brands expect consumers to jump through silly hoops for their brand and product - when the core strategy should be to make the brand "memorable" at the point of purchase? Why would advertising creatives all just jump on the bandwagon and use these same tactics (i.e. Facebook / Youtube / Myspace / Twitter / pointless interactive games / spec-work contests) When you just need to get the shopper to remember your brand when they are shopping?
(This is where I agreed with the original letter from the pissed off consumer.)
For "low-involvement" brands, great advertising and promotions should work to get the consumer to try and buy the product, and that's it. The product should be THE brand experience. And the brand should focus their dollars toward providing a good product, and adhering to ethical business practices. The marketing chain should be that simple.
Furthermore, these tactics only seem to be "creative for creative sake" - rather than truly rooted in the insights of brand-to-consumer conversation. (Brian Wilkens likes interactive games, but he is a smart advertising guy with a "creative mindset"- and he appreciates those kinds of things. In most cases, I don't think Joe Consumer has a fraction of the interest in creative branding as Brian Wilkens.)
I think "media arts" is a more appropriate approach to these "low-involvement" brands, and as such, these brands should capitalize more in the "low-involvement" mindset - (quick, to the point, and memorable where and when it counts). Rather than expecting consumers to devote so much of their time and interest, to push the Brand's "bratwurst lifestyle"... (But then again, maybe I just don't know anything about that lifestyle.)
My last point was more egotistical, in saying that as a creative professional, I would prefer to work on brands that mean something more to my heart, and more importantly - my audience. (i.e. Where a brand-approach is more appropriate and appreciated by the consumer or end-user. And where the morals and passions of the brand and the consumer can tie back in to my own.) Instead of devoting my career to the pursuit of conceiving the most clever-award-winning-innovative-ways-to-sell-anything-and-everything...
Hope that makes sense.
Thanks for putting up with my long copy... and my ego. :)
Jon Miller (OCD/ADHD) (not verified)
August 23rd, 2010, 9:39am
That was extremely funny for some reason. The attempt at marketing he was talking about is par for the course for most ideas internet or not. It takes a creative genius to really excel at marketing and apparently he didn't see it either. Internet marketing for small business is what we do and it doesn't disturb consumers that aren't looking for it. It's quite effective.
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Comments
Well said.
Wow, that is a solid check to all of us thinking of ways to engage customers for the pure sake of getting them to propel our messages a little farther...maybe we should stick to straight entertainment and stop making customers work for the products?
So... Instead of ad agencies doing their jobs and coming up with a targeted messages to deliver to the consumers, we're going to suggest that people, with every day lives, do it for us. I know there are obvious benefits to this type of sourcing, but what about job security? And shouldn't we, as advertisers, be the brand advocates - paid to represent the brand?
This letter matches up with the reasoning of our old friend The Ad Contrarian. While us creative people love innovative, cutting-edge, participatory advertising, the vast majority of people couldn't care less about engaging with marketers.
Dear Brian,
You are entirely too articulate and well-versed in industry lingo for me to believe a word of your story.
The pseudo-English-blue-collar schtick feels a little too contrived....................... go back to your copywriting job.
Cheers!
Marlow
Agreed, yes, the only people who care to participate in this stuff or advertising in general is people who work in advertising. Sometimes ads can drive a pop culture--but I think the last ad that truly can be labeled as such is Cliff Freeman's 'Where's the beef." Nothing from CB+P ever met this mark--most all the hype there has been from within the industry. After all, Alex never really did anything new. Just followed the principles established by Bernbach, Ogilvy and others. It's just a new day now.
Anyway, as one of those people who work in the biz, this growing inward perspective had troubled me for years. So often we produce stuff that absolutely no "real" human being would have any interest in--clever for the sake of clever. Oh, and awards. And because no one really ties what we do to sales, or can, what's the value?
"but I think the last ad that truly can be labeled as such is Cliff Freeman's 'Where's the beef."
Wasssuuuup?!?
He's right. He's a target demographic. The cross-section that won't participate in making a video about sausage for a chance to win something or what ever. For him there's a TV spot, for his wife a print ad a popular woman's magazine and FSI, for his kids, a "kid" friendly spot during his children's Saturday morning cartoons.
For the other cross-section that will participate, there's a way to interact with the brand through video. And maybe even share it with like minded people. And maybe that video spreads, smooth like butter on that sausage's bun, across the internets. And maybe Brian, watches the video on YouTube and says, "I could have done that".
But Brian wouldn't know that because he feels the sausages are speaking directly to him. Which is a different problem all together.
yes, wazzup, indeed a gem. a rare one just the same. and if i remember correctly, the idea was that of the actors in the spot, not the ad agency. anyone remember more detail?
funny. i may not be the target demographic of anything, but i played get the glass for four hours and subservient chicken for days and kiss fight until i realized there was no way to beat that last broad.
i say keep it coming. just keep it fresh and fun.
from one brian to anther, we will try not to make you work too hard to understand the benefit of ground meats in tubes. but brother, the days of broadcasting RTBs and USPs are gone.
I say that this is more relevant where every day CPG brands are concerned. But I would beg to differ, if we are talking about lifestyle-related brands.
I agree with the first Brian, that when you're selling one of many of the bagillions of everyday products that fly through WalMart cash registers everyday, the strategy would ideally be more simple and direct (from my own personal consumer-perspective). I would never waste my precious time to do spec work for a mega-corporation in hopes that they might pick it and use it for an ad. Of course, general consumers don't know what "spec" work is - and for the consumers who participate, well, more power to the brands that compelled them to do it. However, I work in advertising, and I don't care about investing my precious time to help Johnsonville sell more brats. I don't sit there all day and play stupid interactive games. (Nor do I play Farmville or Yoville or Mafiaville on Facebook...)
Now, if you are talking about a brand that actually makes something that means something to me... something that liberates my spirit... gives me creative outlet... or provides a community of other passionate people that I can relate to... Whether it's automotive, shoes, apparel, skateboards, snowboards, snowmobiles, motorcycles, art supplies, outdoor adventure equipment, sunglasses, travel, etc... THEN you are speaking my language! Subsequently, these are the only types of brands that I aspire to work on... (and, God help me, hopefully I will get to continue to work on.)
Maybe I'm not a true "advertising professional", but more of a person who wants to pursue only the things that I'm passionate about... because, let's face it - LIFE IS SHORT, and Johnsonville doesn't need my help in making a few billion dollars more.
Follow your passions people. Good creative is good creative... but the true test of success, is in the metrics of the hearts and minds of your "target consumer". Winning awards and credits from other ad professionals and climbing the agency ladder might be what drives alot of you... but if you're being "creative" and pushing the bar for a brand that people really truly don't care about, then what is the true value of the work you're doing? (Especially when you consider how many hours we spend in doing creative work.)
Going back to Felix's rant about "It's just advertising"... Or the recent web phenomena of Bogusky's departure from the business. Let's put it all in context of this "bloke", and then think... "What are we really working for?"
(Pardon me for going off on a tangent that may be a departure from the subject of this post! In my mind, this is much more important.)
Cheers.
Damn, I must've been stressed out on Friday! haha!
I guess where I was going... is that I would call some of these brands "low-involvement", from a cost of entry, and a disposability perspective.
Why would low-involvement brands expect consumers to jump through silly hoops for their brand and product - when the core strategy should be to make the brand "memorable" at the point of purchase? Why would advertising creatives all just jump on the bandwagon and use these same tactics (i.e. Facebook / Youtube / Myspace / Twitter / pointless interactive games / spec-work contests) When you just need to get the shopper to remember your brand when they are shopping?
(This is where I agreed with the original letter from the pissed off consumer.)
For "low-involvement" brands, great advertising and promotions should work to get the consumer to try and buy the product, and that's it. The product should be THE brand experience. And the brand should focus their dollars toward providing a good product, and adhering to ethical business practices. The marketing chain should be that simple.
Furthermore, these tactics only seem to be "creative for creative sake" - rather than truly rooted in the insights of brand-to-consumer conversation. (Brian Wilkens likes interactive games, but he is a smart advertising guy with a "creative mindset"- and he appreciates those kinds of things. In most cases, I don't think Joe Consumer has a fraction of the interest in creative branding as Brian Wilkens.)
I think "media arts" is a more appropriate approach to these "low-involvement" brands, and as such, these brands should capitalize more in the "low-involvement" mindset - (quick, to the point, and memorable where and when it counts). Rather than expecting consumers to devote so much of their time and interest, to push the Brand's "bratwurst lifestyle"... (But then again, maybe I just don't know anything about that lifestyle.)
My last point was more egotistical, in saying that as a creative professional, I would prefer to work on brands that mean something more to my heart, and more importantly - my audience. (i.e. Where a brand-approach is more appropriate and appreciated by the consumer or end-user. And where the morals and passions of the brand and the consumer can tie back in to my own.) Instead of devoting my career to the pursuit of conceiving the most clever-award-winning-innovative-ways-to-sell-anything-and-everything...
Hope that makes sense.
Thanks for putting up with my long copy... and my ego. :)
That was extremely funny for some reason. The attempt at marketing he was talking about is par for the course for most ideas internet or not. It takes a creative genius to really excel at marketing and apparently he didn't see it either. Internet marketing for small business is what we do and it doesn't disturb consumers that aren't looking for it. It's quite effective.
Post new comment