December 24, 2008
December 23, 2008
We were given little time and no money to do so. Our assignment was to develop full-blown plans -- including creative and media -- for three different markets.
We spent tens of thousands of dollars on the pitch. We had people working nights and weekends -- including Thanksgiving weekend.
When we gave the presentation the head marketing person from the client organization sat with her laptop open reading and answering emails for half the presentation.
While many clients are wonderful and appreciative, sometimes the rudeness and disrespect agencies have to put up with is intolerable.
One of the most difficult tightropes an agency principle has to walk is this: The desire to react honestly to insufferable, self-important jerks, and the knowledge that doing so may cost jobs to people in the agency.
Just once I'd like to be able to tell someone like her to put her laptop on vibrate and stick it where the sun don't shine.
There, I just did.
December 22, 2008
It is fed by search committees who don't know what they're searching for and consultants who need to justify their fees by creating monumental RFPs filled with grotesque irrelevancies.
As someone who has participated in a thousand agency searches, here's how I would do it.
Dear XYZ Agency,If the answers to these two questions don't tell you everything you need to know about the agency, there's nothing wrong with the agency. There's something wrong with you.
We are looking for an ad agency. We would like to consider yours. If you're interested, please read the information we've attached, then answer two questions:
1. In your opinion, what are the key marketing issues we're facing?
2. If you were our agency, what would you do about it?
You may take as much or as little time as you need. Please call me and let me know when you'd like to come in to answer these questions.
December 19, 2008
Simplifiers have the ability to distinguish between the essential and the irrelevant. Complicators cannot.
In advertising, simplifiers are indispensible. Complicators are disastrous.
The advertising business is now in the hands of complicators.
From The New York Times, December 2, 2008:
...a new breed of companies is...creating hundreds of versions of clients’ online ads, changing elements like color, type font, message, and image to see what combination draws clicks on a particular site or from a specific audience...In other words, more complexity; more impenetrable, useless factoids masquerading as data; more paralysis by analysis. More stuff that you think has meaning until you start asking questions and get answers like..."well, that depends...."
If you haven't seen Interactive Advertising Bureau CEO Randall Rothenberg's comments on this subject, check it out here.
Web metrics maniacs have been measuring every visit, every click, every time we blow our nose or wipe our ass. They know what we do and where we live and where we go.
Now they need to tell us what are the principles? What are the simple truths? What do we need to know?
December 18, 2008
In these times, clients expect their advertising to actually sell something. When it doesn't, they get cranky.
Some years ago the ad industry decided that it no longer had to bother itself with the mundane task of selling. Instead, advertising could focus on the much more civilized practice of branding -- whatever the hell that means.
Usually it means we don't have to bother to provide the consumer with any reason to prefer our product. As long as we're clever, hip, and arch we can create "brand advocates" who will internalize our "brand meaning," and...I don't know...write blogs about how much they love us, or something?
Unfortunately, it ain't that easy. The most effective, in fact, the only way to build a brand is to sell someone something.
It often comes as a shock to ad people when we find out how little the marketplace cares about our cleverness and our hipness. Apparently, consumers are more concerned with their own self-interest than with our brilliance.
December 17, 2008
"Facebook applications are the best thing since...sliced bread...they're mushrooming by the day, as companies and individual developers alike catch on to the potential of having their content splashed over (potentially) millions of Facebook profiles."Yeah, right.
Along with so many other social media fantasies, marketers have found Facebook apps to be a pretty good way of pissing away barrels of money. According to Adweek...
- Nike's "Ballers Network" ("the brand saw its mission as building community through applications") gets about 3,400 visitors a month.
- FedEx touted its "Launch A Package" Facebook app as a big success, having achieved 100,000 installations in its first three days. It now gets 1,500 visitors a month.
Other marketers who have flushed away good money on failed Facebook apps include Coca-Cola, Champion, Ford and Microsoft.
As we have said on many occasions, there is no bigger sucker than a gullible marketer convinced he's missing a trend.
So Let's Review...
Advertising on Facebook is going nowhere. The apps scheme is falling apart. Someone remind me... how are they going to make money again?
December 16, 2008
"We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."Yeah, right.
Here were the top ten search items on Yahoo for 2008:
1. Britney SpearsA civilization of the mindless.
2. World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)
3. Barack Obama
4. Miley Cyrus
6. Jessica Alba
8. Lindsay Lohan
9. Angelina Jolie
10. American Idol
December 15, 2008
This blog is a hobby. iTunes is a business.
The difference? Businesses make money.
Facebook is a hugely successful hobby, and a dismal failure as a business. That goes for virtually all social media schemes (more on this later in the week.)
It is very easy to piss away boatloads of money convincing yourself that your web hobby is a business. As a matter if fact, it's the biggest mistake companies and web entrepreneurs make.
In your wildest dreams, can you imagine Steve Jobs spending money on developing a web location where people can upload pictures of their cats, and express their moods, and send cute icons to each other?
Here's a good way to tell if your web idea is a hobby or a business -- would Steve do it?
December 12, 2008
The latest was an attempt by Dr Pepper to hitchhike on the 17-year saga of Guns N' Roses releasing an album called Chinese Democracy.
Apparently without authorization from the band, Dr Pepper claimed it would give away a free can of soda to everyone in America when the album was finally released.
Okay, so far it looks like a cheeky way to have some fun with an ongoing cultural melodrama.
But here's where it gets dumb.
In order to claim your can of soda, you had to go to the Dr Pepper website. Why the website? Because every fucking thing a marketer does now has to have a web component. It's the law.
You see, then you can force all the poor idiots who want a free can of soda to register...and then you have their email addresses...and then you can send them spam...which will wind up in their junkmail boxes...and then you will have tens of thousands of email addresses which are essentially worthless...but in some vague way it looks like you have a web strategy.
So, of course, the website crashed.
And Dr Pepper wound up with a zillion pissed-off, thirsty freeloaders, a possible lawsuit from Guns N' Roses, and soda all over its face.
Would somebody please invent web 3.0 already. Web 2.0 just ain't cutting it.
December 11, 2008
"The Backlash Will ComeTwo weeks ago (November 24, 2008), Ad Age ran this:
It's not going to take advertisers long to figure out that online display advertising has been a failure as an interactive medium (see Two In A Thousand.) It can't sustain its growth for long with a response rate under 2 in a thousand...
Right now, we're still in the frenzy part of the adoption cycle in which every marketer thinks she has to be doing banner ads on the web...
Web zealots can do themselves and us a favor...and derive a set of principles that help advertisers use the medium in an effective way.
Unless they do, they will face a backlash. It may not be this week or this month, but it's coming."
"Is The End Near For Display Ads?Despite the fact that display ads are remarkably ineffective, Ad Age is wrong in suggesting that "the end is near" for them. The end is nowhere in sight. There are three reasons for this:
...Web publishers and agency executives said they are under growing pressure to prove the value of online display advertising..."
1. Banner ads are cheap.So don't worry. You'll have the opportunity to ignore banner ads for many years to come.
2. They are a great source of alibi advertising.
3. The metrics are so arcane, no one knows what they hell anyone is talking about.
December 10, 2008
Yeah, Jean-Marie good thinking. If only we had the internet then. Because the internet has done such a fine job of preventing wars lately. Except, of course, in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Chechnya, and the West Bank, and Darfur, and Georgia...
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - The spread of information on the Internet has given the world a new tool to forestall conflicts, Nobel literature prize winner Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clezio said Sunday.
In his Nobel lecture to the Swedish Academy, the 68-year-old Frenchman said an earlier introduction of information technology could even have prevented World War II.
"Who knows, if the Internet had existed at the time, perhaps Hitler's criminal plot would not have succeeded..." he said.
But other than that, hardly any wars at all!
For Dumb Ideas About Politics...
...just ask an artist.
December 09, 2008
Politicians spent about 50% more on advertising in the 2008 elections than they did in 2004. In 2004 they spent $1.7 billion. In 2008 they spent between $2.5 and 2.7 billion.
And the big winner in all this added spending had to be the web, right? Wrong.
Television got a huge share, with about 85% of all ad dollars ($2.2 billion.)
The web? Less than 1% -- $20 million. Of that $20 million the bulk was in search, which I'm not even sure is advertising.
For a good laugh, go back a couple of years and read all the hyperventilating about how the web was going to play a huge role in political advertising in 2008. For example, this piece from Online Media Daily, August 23, 2006
"Report: Politicos To Boost Web Spending in '08Yeah, right.
Political consultants are gearing up to spend more on the web in 2008...
The study, based on a survey of 155 political consultants, found that about one in three...intend to spend more than 20 percent of their campaign budgets online..." (emphasis mine)
Researchers do studies and issue reports. Nobody ever follows up on their predictions. Some day I'm going to quit the ad businesss and start "The Institute For Research About Research." I'm going to document all the nonsense and bullshit that market researchers promulgate.
I'll do it right after I get my World Series ring and my Nobel prize.
December 08, 2008
One is funny, cheerful, and charming. One is sullen, negative, and unpleasant.
The name "Tommy" has no singular meaning for me. It denotes two different people who are completely unrelated.
I know two companies named "Taco Bell."
One is on television. It is clean, cheerful, and makes nice looking food.
One is in my neighborhood. It is dirty, disgusting, and I would never consider visiting it.
The name "Taco Bell" has no singular meaning for me. It denotes two different things that are completely unrelated.
The people who are spending money to reach me with a message about the tv entity called "Taco Bell" don't realize that it has nothing to do with the store called "Taco Bell" in my neighborhood.
Companies are getting more sophisticated at marketing and more inept at operations. The result is schizobranding. They are promoting something that has the same name, but is disconnected.
Just as I can easily have places in my brain for two unrelated things called "Tommy," I can also have places for two unrelated things called "Taco Bell.
December 05, 2008
Six things you need to know if you're going to be a happy, healthy creative director.
1. Hiring is everything.
If you have terrific people, the advertising business isn’t that difficult. If you have mediocrities, advertising is impossible. For your own self-preservation you must get rid of bad people and hire good ones. There is no other way to do good work and have a happy life. Talent is a rare and precious thing. The idea that "we're all creative" is absolute bullshit. Mediocre talent never makes terrific ads. Never.
2. Avoid the “tyranny of strategy.”
Strategies are not written by God. They are written by planners, researchers, account execs, clients and other mildly retarded mortals. Good creative people often have a better feel for the problem than the committee that wrote the strategy. When you are evaluating a campaign idea, it’s not enough to say ‘this is off strategy’. You must also ask yourself, ‘is this a better strategy than the one we have?’
If the answer is yes, you’re going to have a lousy week. You have to go back and un-sell a strategy that has probably taken months to develop, has been up and down the client organization, and has lots of (probably irrelevant) research to back it up. Somehow, you have to convince a whole bunch of people that all the work they’ve been doing for the past few months is wrong.
Sound impossible? That’s why you get the big bucks.
3. Be eternally skeptical of grand strategic insights:
Planners, researchers and their ilk love to take a little information and turn it into a heroic vision. Beware of this. Most valuable insights are small and contingent. There is almost nothing you can say about human behavior that is universal. Including this.
I was once at an advertising conference and a planning director was making a presentation. She was talking about groups she was conducting for a bank. The groups were going nowhere. She asked a participant “If you could invent the perfect bank, what would it be like?” He sat there for a minute or two without answering.
“I suddenly realized,” she said, “I had the answer right there before me. People don’t want to think about their bank. Then I knew I had the strategy: Bank of Whatever-It-Was. It’s the bank you don’t have to think about.”
I have a different explanation for the above. She asked a stupid question and the respondent sat there dazed and confused.
From the flimsiest of observations, she drew a grand, idiotic conclusion. And worst of all, the agency and the client bought it.
4. Simplify and specify:
I‘ve seen thousands of ads that were too complicated or too generic. I’ve never seen one that was too simple or too specific.
5. Remember why people buy stuff:
There is an old blues song that goes like this:
Feelin’ goodThe guy who wrote that lyric understands marketing better than all the Stanford MBA’s I’ve ever worked with put together. That’s what commerce is about – people spending money to acquire things they think will make them feel better.
All the money in the world spent on
Save your dark, pessimistic vision for your screenplay. Which reminds me...
6. You’re a salesman, not an artist:
Want to be an artist? God bless you. So do I. I wish us the best.
But first you probably need to quit your day job. As a creative director, your job is to sell stuff. If you don’t like that, I don’t blame you. It’s dirty work and hard on the creative ego.
However, if you are not comfortable being a salesman you will not be comfortable or successful being a creative director.
Does this mean it’s impossible to create advertising that rises to the level of art? No. Every generation has a few people who can do that. But trust me on this one, it ain’t you.
* by J. B. Lenoir, Jim Dickinson
December 04, 2008
Gabe: Dude, I saw the coolest video... this 5-year old dribbling, and like real low and between the legs...
Leo: Dude, I can do that.
Gabe: Dude, you're nine.
Leo: Dude, I could do it when I was 5.
Gabe: Dude, this was girl.
Leo: Dude, that's sexist.
Gabe: No it's not.
Leo: Yes it is. Girls can dribble just as good as boys.
Gabe: Dude, that doesn't mean it's sexist.
Leo: Dude...yes it does. Ask one of your mothers.
December 03, 2008
"We don't get them to try our product by convincing them to love our brand. We get them to love our brand by convincing them to try our product."However, most agencies and most marketing mavens still believe that "branding" is something separate from selling.
A perfect example of the tortured logic of branding can be found in this video of a big agency genius explaining why agencies should stop branding and start selling.
George Parker of AdScam hits it right on head:
"...His main point is that as the economy tightens, agencies should throw "branding" out the window and concentrate on producing work that is "hard sell" as this will produce more sales for clients. .. if this approach will sell more ...goods and services...Why the fuck don't these douchenozzles recommend doing it all the time? I'll tell you why... Because you can't quantify what all those millions spent on branding actually do for you. That way you can't be held accountable...."Why have clients lost confidence in the ad industry? Because we've re-defined the purpose of advertising from "selling" to "branding" -- and no one knows what the hell "branding" means, other than it's expensive and requires lots of trips to LA.
Worst of all, the bullshit has gotten so pervasive that when we try to talk sense to clients they start throwing our own brand babble back at us.
A Blog You Should Read:
George Tannenbaum writes one of my favorite blogs -- it's called Ad Aged. Check it out.
December 02, 2008
1. When business goes bad, companies go crazy. Activity passes for progress; delusions pass for ideas.How To Know If Your Online Advertising Plan Is Any Good:
It's so much easier to be reactive than to develop a strategy. There is not a company in America today that isn't considering throwing away/canceling/radically reducing its ad program. However, they'll need something to convince the "stakeholders" that they're "doing something." Enter alibi advertising.
2. Confidence in traditional advertising has greatly diminished. There are a lot of reasons for this -- some legitimate, some not -- and it would require a book to explain them all. It has been fueled by the ubiquitous media narrative that "advertising is dead" and the demented behavior of ad industry leaders who have failed to counter this argument (in fact, have fed it.)
3. The ascendancy of the web. In its brief life, the web has already spawned a truly impressive portfolio of idiotic ideas. But it seems so cheap to do something on the web, that gullible marketers just can't resist. And it looks so nice on a flow chart to have 52 weeks of web presence instead of a few 2-week flights of radio.
Of course, there will be a few winners. But for the most part, we can expect a torrent of truly awful, fruitless online advertising schemes. It's going to be a field day (a field year?) for skeptics.
If it's anything other than search, it's probably a waste of money.
December 01, 2008
There are two kinds of alibi advertising.
I discovered the first kind when I was working on wine accounts.
Each year, wine marketers would have us create storyboards. Then they would have us create extensive media plans. They would take these materials around to the trade and dazzle them.
Once they made their sale, they would throw away all the plans and run some print ads in Wine Spectator. This reached the retailers who had been conned, and gave them the vague impression that real advertising was happening somewhere.
The astounding thing was that wine marketers would do this year after year and never get called on it.
The second kind of alibi advertising isn't intentionally deceptive. It's a strategy by insecure marketing managers to save money by pretending to do advertising, and thereby becoming heroes to their bosses.
They are afraid to ask for the necessary budget to do things correctly, so they come up with "out-of-the-box" marketing ideas -- which in 99% of cases are just moronic schemes. They pitch these schemes inside their company to willing executives who are always looking for excuses to spend less money.
In both cases the result is the same - the appearance of advertising without the reality of it. In some companies, it's a way of life.
TAC predicts that 2009 is going to be the best year ever for alibi advertising. The convergence of 3 trends is going to ensure it:
- A shitty economy
- Loss of faith in traditional media
- The ascendancy of the web
November 26, 2008
- My sock draw is full.
- My dog doesn't smell too bad.
- There are no soldiers stationed in my neighborhood.
- I have some friends.
- My daughter doesn't laugh at my playlists.
- There is a really good bakery in my vicinity.
- I haven't had a cavity in five years.
- There are still some book stores left.
- Only fourteen more weeks till spring training.
- I have something to do every day.
November 25, 2008
Advertisers Punch Up The Punch Lines To Create Some Holiday CheerNow, if the economy was booming, the story would be exactly the same. Only the rationale would change.
Consumer worries over a struggling economy, layoffs, and financial uncertainty have lead a number of major advertisers to launch humorous advertising campaigns for the holiday season.
Brand X, Brand Y, and Brand Z have all begun lighthearted holiday campaigns over the past few weeks. Will they be effective?
Marketing expert Bob Hoffman says, "In times of economic crisis, consumers do not want to be reminded of the woes around them -- especially during the holidays. They want a little fun."
Advertisers Punch Up The Punch Lines To Create Some Holiday Cheer
A booming economy and widespread consumer confidence have lead a number of major advertisers to launch humorous advertising campaigns for the holiday season.
Brand X, Brand Y, and Brand Z have all begun lighthearted holiday campaigns over the past few weeks. Will they be effective?
Marketing expert Bob Hoffman says, "In times of economic growth consumers are predisposed to a positive, light-hearted approach to selling -- especially during the holidays. They expect a little fun."
November 24, 2008
My favorite article of last week appeared in Ad Age and was entitled "Beverage Ads Not Fueling Enough Word Of Mouth."
"In 47% of conversations about brands in general, marketing or advertising is mentioned as a source of information. But only 38% of conversations about beverages include a mention of marketing or advertising."
In my experience -- eavesdropping in public rest rooms and bugging my neighbors' telephones -- here's what I've found. I've transcribed one here for you:
Todd: Dude, what up?In my conversations about beverages, mentions of marketing and advertising occur 0% of the time. 100% of the time the conversation is..."make it a double."
Todd: Any thoughts about like brands?
Jason: Like, brands in general or, like, beverage brands?
Jason: Yeah, like, dude, Cool Ranch Doritos has this awesome like social media site except nobody knows it's like their stealth site and everyone thinks it's like so cool...
Todd: Awesome. Is that like a beverage, or what?
November 21, 2008
Advertising used to be a lucrative profession.
The traditional economic model for an ad agency was this: an agency's goal was to have revenue equal 15% of billings, and profit equal 20% of revenue.
So, on a hypothetical account with billings of a million dollars, the old "MadMen" financial model looked like this.
Billings: $1,000,000There was additional money to be made on other services like production mark-ups and mechanical preparation.
Today's world is way more complex and way more daunting. I haven't seen AAAA's figures recently, but I'll bet for most agencies revenue is down around 10-12% of billings and profit is 7 - 10% of revenue. It's hard to compare the old ratios to the new because so few agencies buy media anymore.
If I'm right, however, the average agency is probably making about $10,000 in profit annually on $1,000,000 of billings. You can make more money on a savings account.
I'm not bemoaning the lack of corporate profits here. What I'm talking about is that companies that can't make decent money also can't pay very well or hire very much. And if you think publicly traded companies are going to forgo their profits to pay more, you're dreaming.
Salaries consume 50-60% of agency revenue. Far greater than any other expense. When times get tough, agencies have 2 options: pay lower salaries or employ fewer people.
When I started in the business, agencies used to have, on average, 4 people per million dollars of billings. Today they have less than one person per million. This is why so many agencies have become sweat shops.
My former partner used to say that clients won't be happy till we have zero people per million.
The difficulty in making money helps explain why so many independent agencies have disappeared. Every ten years or so the agency business turns sour. When it does, independent shops don't have cash reserves like the big guys, and it's hard for them to survive.
The big global agencies will endure the next few years. But it's going to be tough for agency employees and independent shops. Take a deep breath and fasten your seat belt.
November 20, 2008
So while the world comes crashing down around us, I thought I'd make a list of 5 potentially good things about the coming years of deprivation and misery.
- No more fucking crème fraîche. With any luck all the bullshit restaurants will close down and we'll be able to get back to eating good stuff like grilled cheese and spaghetti and meatballs.
- No more designer jeans. If there's any justice in the world, the nitwits who paid $300 for torn denim will need the cash to buy food.
- No more water from Fiji. You know that bottle of water you paid $5.50 for in your hotel room? Well, that shit is free right in the bathroom. I'm not kidding.
- Maybe Verizon will go out of business. And we won't have to look at that putz anymore.
- End of global warming. All those people who've been saying the only way to stop global warming is to change our profligate ways? We'll soon find out if they're right.
...I said depression, not recession.
How Ad Agencies Make Money, Part 3:
"Why MadMen Lived In Barbie Dream Houses And You Live In A Shit Dump."
November 19, 2008
Yesterday we started a series on the economics of the ad business. It's not meant to be in-depth or technical, but just a simple overview for non-financial types.
I am constantly amazed that people who've worked in the agency business for 10 years or more have no idea of the economics of the business. They've heard all the terms but are not really sure what they mean.
Most people who work in agencies would probably be shocked to learn that today the average ad agency is lucky if it can make 10 thousand dollars in profit on a million dollar account.
So before you and your pals decide to quit your jobs, have your moms sew some costumes, and open up an agency, you better get a handle on how the money part works.
Today we're going to define our terms for the three key numbers.
First is billings.
Billings: It's the number that the trade press is obsessed with and agencies lie their asses off about. Yet to smart people, it's the least important of the three numbers.Next is revenue. It's sometimes called "gross income."
Billings is the total amount of a client's money that passes through an agency. If you think of billings as the client's total ad budget you won't be far off. It might include the media budget, production budget, agency fees, etc.
Revenue: It's the amount of money the the agency actually gets to keep. Most (90% or more is not unusual) of the billings dollars get passed through the agency to someone else (tv networks, production companies, printers, etc.) In other words, billings tell you nothing about how much an agency is making. It only tells you about how much it is touching. Revenue (or gross income) tells you how much it actually gets to keep.Finally there's profit. To agency managers, this is the number that really matters.
Revenue may come in the form of fees, commissions, mark-up, hourly charges, etc.
Profit is revenue minus expenses. In other words, how much money is left after all the bills have been paid.One of the huge misconceptions about the agency business is that large billings are always a sign of economic health. It is nothing of the sort. If you refer to the economic history of Interpublic Group (IPG; it owns McCann, Deutsch, HillHoliday, etc) you can see how an agency with billions in billings can lose money.
A small 3-woman shop in Toledo, on the other hand, with a few hundred thousand dollars in billings can be more profitable than IPG.
Later this week we'll put these numbers together and see why the ad business has become such a piece of shit.
Proud To Be...
...the only ad blogger in the universe who hasn't blogged about the Motrin mess.
The arrogance and stupidity of big corporation ceo's is beyond belief. Here's a tip: Before you go begging for 25 billion, sell your fucking private jet.
November 18, 2008
Okay, you're sitting in your cubicle and you're thinking, "why the hell do I care how ad agencies make money?" Here's why:
- So you won't sound like an idiot when you talk to grown-ups.
- Do you really want to work for these morons the rest of your life? If not, you need to know more than how to load the toner cartridge.
So I thought -- as a public service -- I'd do a little series on the economics of the ad business. But don't be frightened. I'll make it so simple even an account planner can understand it. Art directors I can't guarantee.
Here's an outline of what the series will look like:
Part 1: Intro (That's this bullshit you're reading now.)
Part 2: The Three Numbers You Have To Know
Part 3: Why "MadMen" Lived In Barbie Dream Houses And You Live In A Shit Dump.
Part 4: All Advertising Bloggers Are Idiots.
I reserve the right to change this as we go along.
Okay, so your first assignment is to read this and later in the series we'll talk about why the guy who wrote it doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Someone must have dick-slapped the guy who wrote the article I "assigned" because he has since disclaimed his initial mistake. But read the article anyway and we'll talk.
Also read this piece by the same guy. Same problem. We'll talk about it later this week.
Part 2: The Three Numbers You Have To Know
November 17, 2008
It was a reaction to bloggers who had written that the web will diminish the effect of political smears and lies that are spread during campaigns by quickly exposing them.
I believe the opposite. In the post I said, "the internet has proven to be a far better medium for spreading nonsense than for exposing it."
One week later, a story appeared in mainstream media (first, FoxNews then MSNBC, The LA Times, and the New Republic) -- and all over the internet -- that Sarah Palin thought Africa was a country, not a continent.
In short order, MSNBC attributed the story to a McCain campaign staffer named Martin Eisenstadt, senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy.
Only trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn't exist and neither does the Harding Institute. In fact. Eisenstadt is a hoax that has been feeding the news media bogus election stories for months.
Fox (the source of the story) still maintains the story is true. They say it's just MSNBC's attribution that was false. We'll see. I can't say I have a whole lot of confidence in Fox news.
The New York Times reported:
...(the Eisenstadt hoaxers) say the blame lies not with them but with shoddiness in the traditional news media and especially the blogosphere.The story is made even more disturbing by the following facts:
- Remember when the McCain campaign compared Obama to Paris Hilton (celebrities famous for nothing?) Eisenstadt's phony blog claimed that relatives of Paris Hilton had called the McCain campaign to complain. The LA Times political blog reported the story and linked to Eisenstadt.
- Eisenstadt's phony blog contended a few weeks ago that Joe The Plumber was related to Charles Keating, of the 80's saving and loan scandal. That, too, was a hoax but tons of bloggers, (including Fame Crawler and Daily Kos) reported it.
- Robert J. Elisberg of The Huffington Post wrote: "You see, Joe Wurzelbacher is apparently related to Robert Wurzelbacher. Who is the son-in-law of (are you ready...?) Charles Keating!" Oddly, the piece by Mr. Elisberg seems to have disappeared from The Huffington Post. At least, I can't find it. Ironically, it was a Huffington Post piece about how the internet was the remedy to smears, lies, and hoaxes that motivated The Smear Machine in the first place.
The web is not the solution. To an ever-increasing degree, it's the problem.
Not All Contrarians Are Idiots:
Check this out*
Note To Seth:
Enough already with the tribes.
* Shout out to Mark Schaeffer for the Peter Schiff video.
November 16, 2008
November 14, 2008
So I went to PollDaddy, the source of said poll, and found that I could have an awesome poll just like the one I saw for FREE! Couldn't pass that up.
The only trouble was, I didn't have anything I wanted to have a poll about. (You see, secretly I don't give a shit about what anyone thinks. Promise not to tell?)
So I sat around for a while and thought, what can I have a poll about? First I thought "why not take a poll about what kind of poll I should have?" which I thought was a pretty funny idea.
Then I realized -- yes! -- there is something really important that has been ignored by the ad blogging community and we need to get it out in the open.
So please take this poll. And remember, voting is not just a right. It's a responsibility.
November 13, 2008
Then we'd debate whether it was okay for me to kill an idea just because I didn't like it, or whether I needed a reason for not liking it.
I was reminded of this last week when I read a piece in Adweek called "Why Do Clients Deserve The Advertising They Get?" In the piece, the author says...
'It's hard to approve advertising you don't love. But if you must, at least give more of a reason than "I don't like it." That is unactionable feedback... That almost always leads to mediocre advertising.'I couldn't disagree more.
Some ideas just suck; some are ugly; some are stupid; some are just not up to the taste level you aspire to.
As a creative director your responsibility is not just to compare the ads to the brief. Your job is to bring some type of aesthetic sensibility to the work as well. Aesthetics aren't about reasons, they're about taste and opinions.
I was a copywriter and I understand that hearing the words "I just don't like it" may not be the most satisfying criticism. Nonetheless, it's often the most appropriate and the most honest.
And Now For Something Completely Different...
I often (maybe too often) write about the baloney and deception that passes for research in the digital advertising realm, especially among those who have a vested interest in promoting it. It's nice to know that there are some in this realm that aren't full of shit and are eager to look at the facts with an open mind.
November 12, 2008
Apparently MicroSoft, MindShare and Ogilvy teamed up to convince gullible package-goods clients to piss away money on social marketing and other online ad nonsense. Here are some gems from the story, along with comments from yours truly.
Long ago...package-goods marketers largely concluded that women didn't want to spend much time talking about their low-involvement products or buying them online...How wrong they were....some 16% of U.S. women... actually do.Which means 84% don't.
And what exactly are the 16% doing? "Talking about" or "buying" or what? And just for the heck of it, why not tell us how often the 16% do whatever they're doing. Once a week? Once a year? Twice in a lifetime?
"There are women we found who actually have standing orders with Amazon for their toilet paper," said Beth Uyenco, global research director at Microsoft.Hey, global research director, there are people who wipe their ass with Rice Krispie Treats. What the hell does that have to do with spending marketing dollars intelligently?
"The researchers found that women speak or write 7,000 words daily compared with 2,000 for men...That extra 5,000 words a day can be spent on the digital space talking themselves into loving your brand"Sure, and they like music so they can do interpretive dances about your brand.
Just a reminder to those who don't keep up with TAC -- and those who can't distinguish between research and bullshit -- here's the real truth about advertising to women on line, from a Global Advertising Study done by AOL:
"Ninety-nine percent of Web users do not click on ads on a monthly basis. Of the 1% that do, most only click once a month. Less than two tenths of one percent click more often.In other words, as brilliant commenter Timothy Coote wrote recently, these fabulous digital divas that represent an untapped goldmine are "the people
Who are these "heavy clickers"? They are predominantly female, indexing at a rate almost double the male population. They are older. They are predominantly Midwesterners...they look at sweepstakes far more than any other kind of content..."
November 11, 2008
They call you and ask for a comment. In about 30 seconds you can tell what the angle of the story is going to be and what they want you to say. If your comment doesn't agree with the predetermined assumptions of their story they'll either...
- Ask another question
- Keep pumping you until you say something that sounds like it confirms their preconception
- Not print your comment
- In the recent election, candidates spent over 2 billion dollars on tv and radio ads.
- They spent less than 18 million on online ads
- Proportion of spending on traditional media: .992
- Proportion of spending on digital media: .008
"Overall, this was a disappointing election for TV"...said Kip Cassino, vp of research for Borrell (Associates)...The real story, said Cassino, is online spending...The real "real story" is online spending all right -- and how there wasn't any.
But don't expect to hear that from the imbeciles of the trade press or the bullshit "vps of research" with axes to grind.
They have a story they want to tell and they're going to tell it whether it's true or not.
These People Are Wonderful:
It is our practice here at TAC to acknowledge the charming and brilliant bloggers who have had nice things to say about us recently. So thanks to: David Burn, Rhetoric69, Tim Coote, Elliot Stearns, Chris Waters, Matt Jones and Tanya Burek. Please patronize our supporters.
November 10, 2008
Here's what happened. The other night I dreamed that Julia and I were working together. It wasn't clear what we were working on, but it was definitely something very creative.
After work we headed home. I walked with her to someplace like the NYC subway. It was like the NYC subway in the sense that it was a public transportation site. It was unlike the NYC subway in the sense that it didn't smell like cat piss and I didn't feel like my life was in danger.
But I digress...
On the way we talked. We soon confessed our love for one another.
I asked her, Julia, how can someone like you be in love with someone like me? Bob, she said, you're the most interesting, fascinating, funniest guy I have ever met! But Julia, I said, you've worked with Jerry, and George, and Kramer, and internationally handsome movie stars. She just smiled and looked at me adoringly.
Julia told me that she was married and I, likewise, explained the same. We quickly realized, however, that this was a Great Romance and was not subject to the normal, bourgeois rules of sexual behavior. We began to make out.
Now here's the upsetting part.
When we kissed, she made ducky lips. It's hard to explain ducky lips, but if you were here I could show you. You sort of, like, flex your lips and look like a Simpson.
It's not easy trying to kiss someone who's doing that. As a matter of fact, it's kind of alarming.
Julia and I learned a very important lesson that night -- even a Great Romance can't survive something like ducky lips.
By the way, I was terrific.
November 08, 2008
Several commenters took me to task.
Today, however The Washington Post admitted its bias. Their ombudsman, Deborah Howell, had this to say...
"...readers have been consistently critical of ... what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right..."Just one little thing, Deborah, where the fuck were you for the past two years?
TAC voted for Obama and is happy he won. That doesn't make me any less disgusted with the dangerous game the press played.
One of the subtle ways the press gets us to think their way is with photo editing. Think of all the unflattering photos you've seen of John and Cindy McCain. Can you recall one unflattering photo of Barack or Michelle Obama?
November 07, 2008
Now that even The Wall Street Journal has admitted we are in a recession, everyone has run amok with dire predictions about marketing and advertising.
The online world remains relatively upbeat, knowing that the Internet is still attracting plenty of viewers, and that online advertising is way cheaper than more traditional media.
But most pundits are saying that TV advertising is more vulnerable than ever – that companies are going to cut their TV advertising budgets, that DVR penetration is going to help put the nail in the coffin.
But what’s really going to happen to TV viewing in the near future?
Let’s see … everybody has a TV … people are staying at home more … consumption of entertainment usually goes up when the economy is down… and now it's dark by the time we get home from work...
All of these factors say “more TV watching” as far as I’m concerned. Which means that TV advertising will make as much – if not more – sense than ever.
In A Recession, Protect Your Customers
Today's second guest post is by James Hipkin.
Retaining customers is always important. But, in a recession, it is vital.
The tendency when times are tough is to focus on acquisition. Acquisition is important. But focusing on customer retention is less expensive and will have a greater short-term impact on your business. Small increases in loyalty (or attrition) will have significant impact on your bottom line.
Retained customers have the following benefits over newly acquired customers.:
- You don't need to bribe them. They have paid full price in the past and are prepared to continue to do so. They are loyal because they see value in your products or services.
- They are more likely to respond to up-sell and cross-sell offers. Because they have a relationship with your brand, they are easier to convert.
- They cost less to service. They know how your products work and don't need to contact customer service or sales as frequently.
- They can be advocates for your products. Especially when times are tough, consumers want to make purchase decisions with confidence. Nothing builds confidence like a personal recommendation from a peer they trust.
Your smartest competitors will be targeting your best customers. You need to protect them. For specific ideas on how to do this, click here.
Remember, no matter how well you do everything else, you can't make money without customers.
James is director of Link, the digital and direct response arm of Hoffman/Lewis. You can reach him at email@example.com
Susan is director of strategic planning at Hoffman/Lewis. You can reach her at firstname.lastname@example.org.
November 06, 2008
Today's guest post is by Jimmy Cabral.
My grandfather prepared me for a recession. Grandpa Red grew up in an orphanage in Healdsburg, CA. Times were tough and his mother couldn’t afford to take care of him.
He worked hard his whole life and appreciated the money he earned. Later, when he married and raised four children, those tough times never seemed to leave him.
He had everything he needed and, once in a while, he’d get something he wanted. He was the type of person that always bought quality -- but it was the most basic model of quality. His cars were well used, but always meticulously taken care of. He always knew who had the lowest price on the stuff he needed.
He'd clip a coupon. In fact, he had a coupon drawer. He didn’t like cheap though. He’d walk in anywhere and bargain with anyone. He’d pay what he thought was fair, or he’d walk out.
I remember once when he got a new TV our whole family was certain that Grandpa Red got the best deal available. And he was proud to let you know it.
Some thoughts about Grandpa red:
- He didn’t need or care about the latest unnecessary features.
- He wasn’t cheap, he appreciated value.
- He used and reused every bit of everything he bought.
- He watched prices and he’d wait for the best one.
- He was a brand loyalist. All of his tools were Craftsman. In his mind, compromising on quality was not an option.
- He didn't buy anything he didn't need.
- None of this interfered with his happiness.
Jimmy Cabral is group creative director at Hoffman/Lewis. You can reach him at email@example.com.
November 05, 2008
Now the bad news. I've been thoroughly disgusted by press bias in his favor.
As someone who is a "communications professional," I have a healthy regard for the difference between what I do in advertising -- advocacy -- and what the press is supposed to do -- report facts.
Press favoritism has reached an outrageous and dangerous point in this country.
It was clear from the day he started running that the press was in Obama's pocket. Anyone who couldn't see that is either a fool or didn't want to see it. I've included some links below but for those who just want the topline:
- By 8 to 1 Americans think the press wanted Obama to win.
- In the last months of the campaign, the press carried three times as many negative stories about McCain as about Obama.
We are living in a nasty, troubled world and we need the best press we can get. Instead, we have a bunch of arrogant, snotty, know-it-alls who believe we need their advice on how to think. They are tough on the people they don't like and fawn on the people they do.
I have no use for the self-righteous, god-botherers of the Republican right. But they're dead right about one thing -- the "media elite" in this country are a fucking disgrace.
- Washington Post here: "Coverage of McCain Much More Negative Than That of Obama".
- Pew Research Center here: 8 to1, Americans think press favored Obama.
- Founder of Harvard Media Center and Democratic Fundraiser here: “I am absolutely outraged with the media coverage of the presidential campaign.”
- ABC News here: Opinion piece by disgusted reporter.
November 04, 2008
During difficult times it's more important than ever to be practical and realistic about what you're trying to achieve by spending money on advertising. We have certain principles we guide our company by (you can find them in Bob's book, The Ad Contrarian.) Two are particularly relevant in times like these:
- First, create advertising that is focused on changing behavior, not attitudes.
Trying to change attitudes is a difficult and expensive proposition under the best of circumstances, and this ain't them. For the time being, ignore your agency’s brand babble and focus on giving your customer a practical reason to try you now. (By the way, getting them to try your product is the best way to build your brand, but that's another story.)
Give her a good reason to change her behavior. She will respond to a good deal; a service enhancement; a special offer; meaningful product differentiation; innovations; new benefits, etc.
- Second, target the heavy user (high-yield customer) in your category.
Now is the time to go after this heavy-using, high-yield customer. Economic conditions are causing them to re-think their habits. They are willing to reconsider entrenched brand loyalties.
You have a unique opportunity to get them to give you a try. Find out who they are, and design your advertising to appeal to them.
Advertising during tough economic times is not for the timid. You’re going to be asked a lot of difficult questions by those in your company. However, if you have a good reason to advertise, and a clear, sensible and practical strategy, advertising can be a major asset in seeing you through these times.
Sharon is president of Hoffman/Lewis, San Francisco and St. Louis. You can reach her at firstname.lastname@example.org
November 03, 2008
Whenever there’s a serious economic downturn there are always two knee-jerk reactions:
1. Advertisers cut their ad budgets.
2. Ad executives say they shouldn’t.
Who’s right? Well, that depends on who you are.
In order to have an intelligent advertising strategy during a recessionary period, you need to understand that there are basically three kinds of businesses:
- Businesses for whom advertising is essential.
- Businesses for whom advertising is discretionary.
- Businesses that are somewhere in the middle.
Businesses for whom advertising is essential.
For some companies, advertising is oxygen. With it, they grow. Without it, they die.
These businesses tend to be in categories that are consumer-oriented and highly responsive to marketing activity. They include fast food, retail, consumer packaged goods, and automotive.
If you are in one of these categories, or a similar category, trying to save money by dramatically cutting advertising will do more harm than good. If you have a successful advertising campaign in progress, you should stay the course in terms of spending and message.
However, if you're in a category like this and your current advertising efforts are not showing success, you need to keep advertising but change your strategy. How?
Create advertising that is focused on changing customer behavior, not customer attitudes.
A lot more about this tomorrow.
Businesses for whom advertising is discretionary.
There are some types of businesses that are not highly responsive to advertising: life insurance, wine, and serious technology are a few examples.
These businesses generally use advertising for secondary purposes like influencing investors, impressing the trade, softening you up for the sales call or, frankly, assuaging corporate egos (hard to believe, huh?) Advertising may be useful, but is not essential to the business.
If you are in one of these categories, and revenue is starting to sag, saving advertising dollars is a good idea. If you go dark for a few months the only ones who’ll notice will be your ad agency.
Businesses that are somewhere in the middle.
Most businesses are somewhere in the middle. Advertising is sometimes successful, sometimes essential, and sometimes unnecessary or ineffectual.
If you are in one of these businesses you can do yourself a lot of good, or a lot of harm. It all depends on whether you're using creative and media strategies that are appropriate for the times. What you did last year may not be a good model and needs to be reconsidered with a sober eye.
To get some specific ideas on how to build your creative and media strategies, part 2 is here.
Sharon is president of Hoffman/Lewis. You can reach her at email@example.com
Share The Crankiness:
Add The Ad Contrarian widget to your blog or website. Go here.
October 31, 2008
This Could Cost Him Votes In Berkeley.
Reinventing Iconic Bullshit:
Last week, McKinney in Raleigh N.C, won the Sherwin-Williams account. From Adweek:
McKinney president Jeff Jones said that agency and client would now "work to reinvent this truly iconic American brand for future growth and prove its expertise in the marketplace.Are there any brands left that aren't "iconic?"
And if it's so ifuckingconic, why does it need to be "reinvented?"
And how does a brand have "expertise in the marketplace?" I thought humans had expertise. Although, apparently not in language.
Hey, Jeff, you're in the fucking communication business, okay?
I can't wait for this election to be over so people will stop sending me "The Big Schlep." If I wanted unfunny video I'd get a DVD of Whoopi Goldberg.
Note to Sarah: No matter how noble the cause, pedantic is never funny.
It's Just A Coincidence, Right?
We know all news organizations are unbiased (they promised!) and all polling is scientific (they said so!)
So it's just a wacky coincidence that in this morning's polls the most liberal, CBS/NYTimes, has Obama up by the widest margin (+11) and the most conservative, FOXNews, has him up by the smallest margin (+3).
The difference? A mere 367%.
From CBS/NYTimes: "With less than one week until Election Day, maintains a clear lead over
From FOXNews: "The race for the White House has tightened significantly..."
Just a wacky coincidence, right? Yeah, right.
Is the worst month of the year and Halloween is the worst day of the year. Good fucking riddance.
It's going to be "Recession Week" here at TAC. Five days of advice and opinions about advertising and marketing while the world comes crashing down around us...talk about your fun! It's even got its own logo, just like on cable! Why am I using so many fucking exclamation marks?!
Share The Crankiness:
Add The Ad Contrarian widget to your blog or website. Go here.
October 30, 2008
Here's a lovely example.
The ClickZ Network reports that in a study released by Razorfish...
"...many MySpace and Facebook users said ads on their favorite social sites have prompted them to buy something"Sounds promising, doesn't it? Just don't look too closely.
"Razorfish describes the survey respondents as "connected consumers." It defines them as people with broadband access who spent at least $200 online (emphasis mine) in the past year, used a community site such as MySpace (mine again) and consumed or made some type of digital media including videos and music."In other words, they only sampled the most likely suspects.
And what did they find?
"Razorfish...found that 40 percent of the respondents said they made purchases due to seeing those ads."So let's translate this into plain English.
Among the fraction of the population most likely to respond to an online ad, who have visited social sites probably thousands of time, 40% claim to have responded to an ad once.
And we're supposed to be impressed with this?
But of all the bullshit in this report, the sentence I really love is this one:
"Connected consumers have enthusiastically embraced social media.This is a beautiful bit of tautological bullshit. Since they define "connected consumers" as those who "have used a community site such as MySpace," what this sentence really means is this: Those who have embraced social media have embraced social media.
Razorfish has a vested interest in encouraging online advertising. If you want reliable information about the effectiveness of advertising on social media, get it somewhere else.
Want the real scoop? From a Global Advertising Study done by AOL:
"Ninety-nine percent of Web users do not click on ads on a monthly basis. Of the 1% that do, most only click once a month. Less than two tenths of one percent click more often. That tiny percentage makes up the vast majority of banner ad clicks.Not exactly the MySpace, Facebook crowd.
Who are these "heavy clickers"? They are predominantly female, indexing at a rate almost double the male population. They are older. They are predominantly Midwesterners...they look at sweepstakes far more than any other kind of content. Yes, these are the same people that tend to open direct mail and love to talk to telemarketers."
Don't miss "Recession Week" here at TAC. Five days of advice and opinions about advertising and marketing while the world comes crashing down around us. It's even got a logo, just like on cable!
Share The Crankiness:
Add The Ad Contrarian widget to your blog or website. Go here.