Monday, March 26, 2007

Creativity. Not just for creatives.

The advertising industry has been listening to, and contributing to the debate over creativity for decades - since the DDB era. Some would argue the Ogilvy ear. Whatever.

In the era of CGC and Tivo, one thing has become apparent: the opinions of the lowest common denominator can no longer be ignored. Ad Age warns that commercial ratings will soon restructure the way networks prioritize commercials.

Lord, let it happen before we get too far into the 2008 presidential season. Please. Political advertising is one of those bastardized artforms, like politics itself, that seems to breathe its own air - after all politicians are in the business of politicking, not marketing (although they sure TRY to cross that line, they are absolutely out of touch. Visit John Edwards' Second life campaign headquarters for agonizing evidence of this.)

The status quo will not fly if, everytime one of the candidates opens their yaps, they get the big red dot from 5 million DVR subscribers. Ditto for media tactics like the "This is our country" Chevy TV buy. Conversely, it'll be interesting if single-run spots get pleas for a second airing.

A magazine with tiny distribution recently stuck my ad on the back cover because the magazine liked the ad so much. (It was not particularly good - it just wasn't particularly bad.) This kind of motivation, in an era of voting for advertising with your clicker-thumbs, may finally force car dealers, drug manufacturers and financial institutions to catch up with the rest of the world (read: Nike, Macintosh, Geico and Budweiser, etc.) and create truly compelling commercial content.

The implications, especially for clients whose products are not compelling to begin with (think of the last women's hygeine product that didn't make you hate television advertising on priciple) are truly scary. Commercial-as-entertainment just doesn't work for a lot of products. Where will those ads end up? On truly unwatchable cable, is my guess.

5 comments:

Make the logo bigger said...

Nice thinking. Watching a Sunday morn. political show, one guest from Washington Post basically said in the case of Obama and 1984, what can you do? No way to defend against all these clips. I would suggest the only way is to tell the public, unless you hear or see it on a candidates website, it's not sanctioned or reliable.

Problem is, once you ring that bell with something ‘unapproved’ like 1984, it's hard to unring that perception formed in the public's mind.

paul said...

I think this is where it's time to give consumers a bit of a hand here. As in, consumers can choose the advertising they want to see on a given platform. If they are shopping for cars, then they could turn on car ads, sort of thing. But, then take it a step further...

What if a certain advertiser's ads are bullshit crap? Then the consumer could just turn off their feed, and any chance at future exposures. The amount of advertising remains roughly the same, but allows the audience to filter the crap, and see more relevant stuff at the same time.

Maybe we could push Joost into this sort of model?

this is paul from hee haw marketing, by the way. It's not letting me change accounts.

James-H said...

MLTB:Maybe hijacking shitty ads is the first step. You want a fucking DIALOG, Hillary? You got a fucking dialog now.

Paul: exactly.

Make the logo bigger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Make the logo bigger said...

If we could start by hijacking all the ads where she's shouting, that would be ok with me. Of course, that's pretty much every thing she has out there.

I’m just waiting for the President Bush press conference clips/Fred Thompson movie retorts mash-ups to start. I'd do it, but then I’d have no time to stay up all night searching for weird shit online to blog about.

Gotta have priorities.