Another Fun-Packed Bullshit Bonanza

In my lifetime, there has never been a subject about which more bullshit has been written than digital advertising. Except maybe God.

Anyone who has been to one of my talks knows that my favorite thing to do is go back a few years and compare the grand proclamations and predictions of our digital marketing experts with reality. This never fails to yield a treasure trove of giggles.

Recently, it has been particularly entertaining.

Earlier this month Digiday, reported in an article entitled "The IAB UK: Banners Don't Work" that the senior industry programs manager of the IAB in the UK said, "We’re learning now that it doesn’t work.”

One week later, the senior VP-technology and ad operations at the IAB in the US all but admitted that banner advertising is a blight and a disgrace, "We messed up...The consumer is demanding these actions...and we must respond."

This drove me to go back a few years and re-read a few things. First was a piece that I wrote for Digiday. The piece itself is nothing special -- just my usual diatribe against the waste, stupidity and ineffectiveness of display advertising.

But the great thing was the comments on the piece.

For example...

"What a totally off-base article...he clearly hasn't invested much time in understanding the digital display space…The reason display is so interesting is precisely because there are much deeper metrics that can be gleaned on ad engagement, time on site, visibility, cross channel tracking, post-view influence, and many others - all combined with targeting and retargeting capabilities that dwarfs what's possible in any other mediums..."

"I think you make several logical fallacies, especially the one that marketers are spending billions cluelessly on digital advertising (given the vast data it spins off). This is a ridiculous assumption..." 

"...the real insight comes when you look beyond each silo and start to measure the cross-channel value of a campaign, optimizing budget in real time..." 

"Banner ads should NOT be used for clicks, nor measured by such. But they can brand quite effectively..."

Yeah, right.

Then, having too much fun to stop, I came upon these wonderful articles from 2012:

From American Express: QR Codes Make Print Campaigns Jump Off the Page which assures us that...

"You can flip through any magazine and see dozens of brands using QR codes."

Why just dozens? Why not hundreds? When you're making shit up why not go all the way?

Then from Entrepreneur.com: Is the End Near for Traditional Advertising? In which we learn that...

"The demise of in-your-face marketing and advertising is close at hand..."

Yeah, yeah, any minute now.

And of course from the geniuses at Harvard Business Review we learned the value of a "like" in How to Calculate the Value of a Like . It turns out that the secret formula was...

No, you can't make this shit up.

I can only imagine how much of their clients' money these experts flushed down the toilet with their dopey arguments, trendy jargon, delusional bullshit, and shallow knowledge of how advertising actually works.

On the plus side, they do provide plenty of laughs for the rest of us.

Will The ANA Investigation Become A Stunt?

After reflecting on it a little, I'm thinking that the investigation launched last week by the ANA (Association of National Advertisers) into the dealings of media agencies has the potential to turn into a feeble stunt.

I don't think it's any secret that the ANA and the globalized agency holding companies are a little cozy.

A lot of the agency boys were hand-picked by the client boys. Overfed corporate types on both sides tend to be cut from the same mold. They don't like to see their fraternity brothers getting into too much hot water.

There are three ways this investigation could go.

First, it could uncover nothing. This is the ideal outcome that would clear the industry of any responsibility for fraud, sleaze, or corruption. While I am certain that most agencies are principled and do not screw their clients, I am equally certain that there are others who are not so principled. My assessment of the probability of this investigation turning up no wrong-doing: between zero and nothing.

Second, the investigation could turn up evidence of criminal behavior. The reference to former FBI agents in the stories last week implied that this was possible.

I believe the chances of this happening are very small. The issue here is definitions - what constitutes a criminal act as opposed to just plain sleaze is often hard to define.

The U.S. government, as a rule, expects businesses to keep a careful eye on their own money and doesn't generally display much sympathy for big, stupid corporations who get fleeced by sharpies. I'd say the odds of government agencies stepping in are very low unless a clear pattern of criminality is established. I doubt this is the case. These hot-shot agency boys are crafty and duplicitous but they're not criminals. At least I hope not.

The third and most likely outcome will be that the ANA investigation will turn up a shitload of hanky-panky, but no criminal behavior. They will find that some agencies have found new and creative ways to use clients' money and/or value to feather their own nests. And have been putting their own interests ahead of their clients'.

But let's be realistic here. The ANA members have some face to save and some boneheadedness to hide, too. As I've been ranting for years, advertisers have been asleep at the wheel. Their naiveté about online sleaze has been a clown show of epic proportions.

Aristocratic suckers don't usually like to be publicly exposed. I doubt they're going to want the world to see how timidly they were led to the slaughter.

They'll probably slap the hands of their pals in the holding companies. They'll "insist" on more "transparency." A few heads may roll and an account or two may change hands.

But what we'll get will be carefully crafted PR. I doubt we'll ever get the full story.

Dead Agencies Walking

Over 2 1/2 years ago, in a piece entitled "Time To Clean Out The Stables" I called for an investigation of the advertising industry's media buying practices.

"Not only are online advertisers getting screwed by crooks, some of them are also getting screwed by their agencies... This industry is in desperate need of investigation." 

It seems that advertisers have finally woken up.

In the past week, the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) has announced an investigation into the media buying practices of ad agencies. The investigations will go beyond online practices and look at all media.

There are a number of interesting things to note about these investigations:

First, the ANA has hired two separate companies to conduct its investigation. One of which employs former FBI agents. These guys don't fuck around.

According to the Financial Times, the ANA's investigation will...

"...probe the “non-transparent behaviour” of rebates, barter, arbitrage, dark pools, inventory management, global transactions, and supply chain media management."

This is just corporate fancy talk for agency kickbacks and undisclosed fees. And believe me, the industry is drowning in them.

According to The Wall Street Journal, a study done by Forrester Research and the ANA last year that interviewed high level marketing executives found that...

 "...more than half of those polled noted a high level of concern over the possibility that agencies may receive a rebate from the media seller."

Ad Age reports that ANA President-CEO Bob Liodice said the effort will go beyond rebates and include arbitrage of digital ad inventory.

What this means, as I said in my piece 2 1/2 years ago, is that agencies...

 "...buy online ad space at one price and then resell it to their clients at another price. And guess what? The price they sell it at is higher than the price they buy it at."

Second, previously the ANA had been working with the 4A's on a "Joint Media Transparency Taskforce" to develop a set of principles for "transparency" in the agency business. Between the lines, you can only assume that the ANA has to be pretty damn pissed off with the 4A's "Taskforce" if in the middle of this they are pulling out and starting to conduct their own investigation. Sounds very troublesome for the 4A's

Third, there are some big time agency executives shitting their pants right now. Under racketeering laws, some of the stuff that has been alleged is not just sleazy, it's illegal. And Federal Country Clubs have lousy wine cellars.

If the ANA investigation finds what I thoroughly expect it to find, this could be a very rough year ahead for the agency business.

There have been three major factors in the corruption of the agency industry over the past several years.

First is the transition of the agency business passing from the hands of craftspeople (copywriters, art directors, media people, research people, and account people) who actually worked in advertising, into the sweaty hands of financial wise guys, lawyers and accountants.

Second, has been the accumulation of far too much power in too few hands by the consolidation of the industry into a handful of grotesque corporate holding companies.

And finally is the pitiful acquiescence of the client community in allowing the hideous destruction of a once vibrant and creative industry into another corporate monstrosity.

This investigation is long overdue. It would be wonderful news if it was found that our leaders did nothing irregular or illegal.

But you can put me down as officially skeptical. I foresee months of "I said, he said" which will result in some small to middle size suckers taking the fall for the big guys. The big heads will hire high priced lawyers and will negotiate fat cat exit packages We can only hope that there are a few emails floating around that implicate the Sorrells and his ilk.

I used to tell my staff that when a client has confidence in you you can do anything. But once a client loses confidence you're dead.

This could be the year of dead agencies walking.