Advertising Thingys

Meet the new advertising. Same as the old advertising.

Nader Ashway3 Comments

This morning, I started my day by reading several articles, blog posts and emails.  And it seems that all of them were about “viral video.”  Did you see those cute little babies on roller skates?  (How did they do THAT?)  Or the naked stewardess?  How about the viral video that EXPLAINS how the Samsung viral video was filmed?  Did you hear that the ad world is anxiously awaiting new web videos from FedEx?

Viral, viral, viral.  And this stuff is way out in the open.

But here’s the thing.  It’s all been done before.

The online revolution has been a liberating force – inside and out of the marketing sphere – particularly for the information consumer.  Companies large and small cram their value propositions into an 800 pixel frame for the world to see.  Politicians can clearly (sometimes) lay out their platforms for voters.  And millions of people (including yours truly) with opinions on millions of topics, blog the days away, blasting and re-shaping the editorial and cultural landscape.

But what about advertising?  Why is it that advertising is ALWAYS about making these little movies?  In the three and a half decades since the early 1970’s, the television :30 or :60 has remained the absolute pinnacle of creative output.  TV wins the big awards.  TV drives the big budgets.  TV, TV, TV.  It puts radio and print ads and direct and outdoor and promotions out to dry.

So here comes the new new economy.  And the new new Internet.  And the new new advertising opportunities.  Anything goes, right?  Flash.  Ajax. New banner sizes. Peelbacks. Ads that “fly” across your website.  Wow.  So many possibilities for creativity.  So many opportunities for engagement.  So many ways to measure!

And yet what is the new new advertising form?  The teacher’s pet of them all?  TV spots, disguised as “viral” videos!

Meet the new boss.  Same as the old boss.

Microsoft advertising is HELPING Apple

Nader AshwayLeave a comment

Microsoft is pretty happy with their new ad campaign from Crispin Porter & Bogusky.  After all, what could be better than pairing one of the biggest and most venerated technology brands on the planet with the creative weirdos who brought us “subservient chicken?”

In a survey of some of the recent ads in the PC Hunter campaign, “Lauren” says “I’m just not cool enough to be a Mac person.”  “Giampaolo,” a tech-savvy and demanding user, says “I don’t want to pay for the brand, I want to pay for the computer.” “Sheila,” a filmmaker, says “this Mac only comes with 2GB of RAM.”

So, what’s the big deal?  First of all, they’re factually inaccurate, but that’s never been a huge concern in television advertising anyway.  In fact, Microsoft COO Kevin Turner is now confirming a rumour that Apple called Microsoft and threatened legal action if they don’t pull the spots, based on some erroneous lines.

Second, someone should probably tell these “users” that in all of the Microsoft empire, you won’t find a single laptop being produced.  Not one.  Not anywhere.  But I suppose that an ad campaign comparing operating systems would be a bit much for the prime time audience, even coming from Crispin.

Okay, enough about the spots.  What about the marketing behind them? It seems like Crispin is doing more for Mac than they are for Microsoft in this very un-Crispin-type campaign. First of all, they’re positioning apples (nice pun, eh) against oranges…Microsoft is an OS only, Apple actually MANUFACTURES and BUILDS laptops and desktops. It’s like comparing GoodYear Tires with BMW cars and then bragging that the tires are cheaper.

But of all the marketing strategies that were considered, and for all the aura and creative mystique of the agency, and all the inherent attributes of the Microsoft brand – and its history of success – that were laid on the table, they went to war with a “we’re cheaper” strategy? Wow. Suddenly those old ads from Mc-Cann Erickson – the ones with the kids and the drawn-in rocketships – look really good right now.

Check your privacy – on the Floor

Nader Ashway1 Comment

The federal government is preparing to introduce a bill on the floor of the House of Representatives to determine how and how much information websites and web advertisers can or should collect.  The current option includes an FTC recommendation that would give consumers control over how much information is collected [via a widget or checkbox,] and even allow them to opt out of sharing such data.

The ironic part of this story is that this is one of those big and simple ideas that make the web great, and Congress is about to bungle the whole thing into a legislated, crap-tastic mess.  The key reason sites and advertisers collect data is so that the user is served ads and results that are contextually relevant.  (Note that the verb is “served.”  Not “offered.”  Not “blindsided.”  Not “broadcast.”)  The web’s most identifiable and profitable USP is exactly what the Federal Trade Commission is trying to undo.

Historically, advertising has gotten remarkably better (at the work and the results) as it has gotten more targeted.  In media buying, we used to buy males 18-25.  Now we buy males, aged 19, who live in one of five ZIP codes within five miles of my retail location, like heavy metal and pizza and are thinking of attending a technical institute.  The ads have gotten better.  The ROI has improved for advertisers and the rest of those boys just outside the detailed segment are getting LESS ads that they don’t want to see.

Behavioral targeting is a very good thing.  The web monitors my searches, and the sites I visit, and uses that data to send me RELEVANT and TIMELY marketing messages.  It helps me shop (Amazon welcomes me with “Recommendations for you!”) It helps me fill out online forms.  It sends me email updates on stocks I’m following.  It also saves me from a slew of ads for hosiery, or country music, or geriatric footwear.

If we begin walking down this slippery slope under the oh-so-noble guise of “privacy” and “protection,” we’ll end up hurting marketers, media, agencies and – worst of all – consumers in the process.