Ordinary Advertising

Some droll economist (an admittedly rare combination) once made the observation that statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is intriguing, but what they conceal is vital. Which is exactly how I felt about a New York Times article I read a few weeks ago. Why will become obvious momentarily, but before I get into that I should probably remind any readers who aren’t already aware of it that I’ve had serious reservations about the Internet’s value as a vehicle for extraordinary advertising for some time now. Yet I’ve been singularly unsuccessful in coming up with any statistical evidence to support this concern. Driven by the growth of search advertising–which has about as much to do with extraordinary advertising as a Yellow Pages campaign–the Internet has persisted in appearing to be the veritable Golconda of ad venues that so many clients think it is (or fervently wish it would be).

So you can imagine the look on my face when I turned to the Business Day section of the Times on Monday, May 19th, and saw this headline: “Online Search Ads Faring Better Than Expensive Displays”, followed shortly thereafter by the statement: “While search advertising remains strong, there are signs that the growth in online advertising–particularly in more elaborate display ads–is slowing down. Mirabile dictu, says I, especially at the parade of statistics that came next: “The prices paid for online ads bought through ad networks dropped 23 percent from March to April, according to PubMatic, an advertising-technology company in Palo Alto, CA that runs an online pricing index.”

This same index also revealed that “Large Web publishers fared the worst in PubMatic’s study, with the prices they received through networks dropping 52%.” A rather precipitous decline that almost made Time Warner’s admission, cited a little later in the article, that versus a year ago in Q1 of this fiscal year: “Display advertising at the network AOL declined 18%, to $191 million.” look positively sanguine.

So was this proof positive that my stance on Internet advertising was about to be partially vindicated? Not so fast. That all depends on what one sees underneath the bikini. (Like usual, I suppose.) And according to at least one well-informed authority, Jeffrey Lindsay, senior analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, the entire reason for the decline in Internet display advertising is: “The weakest form, the one that most susceptible to a downturn–and this is what we’re seeing–is display advertising.” In other words, if search advertising remains strong while display advertising goes off a cliff “It’s the economy, stupid.”? That’s not where I net out. To me “it’s the advertising, moron.” But maybe Mr. Lindsay was alluding to this when he referred to display advertising as the Internet’s “weakest form.” I don’t know.

What I do know is I’ve yet to encounter any form of Internet display advertising that comes remotely close to being of the extraordinary, brand-building, image-enhancing variety. And that even includes things like Apple’s dynamic banners leveraging its Mac versus PC campaign, which wouldn’t be worth a damn without the tailwind supplied by the TV advertising behind this campaign.

Still, as someone’s bound to point out, there’s more than banner ads going on in the world of online display advertising. What about that Philips thing people have been talking about like crazy lately? Crazy is right, if you ask me. Have you seen it? If not, you should check out www.shaveeverywhere.com and I’ll wait right here. I did, and with a fairly open mind (for me anyway). Mainly because I have a lot of respect for the person who told me about it and am genuinely curious about this burgeoning field. And frankly, I was appalled. Bored stiff would be more like it. Seriously, if this is the apotheosis of Internet-based brand advertising today, all of us old hands have nothing to fear, since only a ten-year old could possible find it amusing. And anyone with the time to meander through it is clearly not doing his or her part to elevate the Gross National Product. Yet, here was an effort on Philips part to make me aware of a product that–more’s the pity–is of some personal relevance to me. Specifically, a way to deal with those hairs some men sprout for which neither waxing nor a 25-bladed Gillette razor is an appealing alternative.

But this advertising, if you want to call it that, fails miserably. And my opinion of Philips would be even lower right now if I weren’t so sympathetic to the torrent of advice clients are subjected to these days telling them on no uncertain terms that this–Internet advertising in all its myriad forms–is the wave of the future, as an article I read in Creativity a while back took great pains to do.

In it, a certain Mr. Nick Law of R/GA (a big provider of online advertising) claimed that the old advertising model of having a writer and art director team up to create an amusing story of some sort coupled to a sponsor’s message is both sadly out of date and not at all what the Internet’s about (or very good at I might add). And that instead “The copywriter and art director should now be part of a flat, flexible and modular creative team that understands technology and how the customer relates to it.” Reason being he says is that “…you can’t divorce the message from the medium…” And “This has, in turn, complicated advertising. Back when both patron saints (Bernbach and McLuhan) walked the earth in sensible shoes and Brylcreem, advertising was simple–and the medium stable. You could sell a car or a candy bar with the right tagline. Now the product influences the choice of medium and the medium influences the message.”

Thus, in Mr. Law’s mind the medium–in this case, the Internet–is still the message and since it’s not adept at conveying engaging stories (the Philips travesty being a prime example), engaging storytelling is out and the entire advertising model must be stood on its ear. At least that’s what I imagine some poor client reading this would be forced to conclude. And lest you think I’m twisting what Mr. Law means, here’s how he summarized it:

“For example, if your product is a car then the web is a good medium to sell it. (NB: “Sell it”, not brand it.) But despite what story guy (his term, not mine) keeps insisting, it is not a great place to put an extravagantly overproduced car narrative (or excruciatingly painful Philips filmstrip, either). It is better suited to deep information and a robust configurator (whatever the hell that is). If your product is a less-considered purchase like a candy bar, a better medium might be the side of a bus; not great for a list of ingredients, but just fine for a zippy headline.” (Is it just me, or does it seem significant that he chooses to represent traditional offline advertising with a bus side instead of its two most powerful, brand-building vehicles: television and print advertising?)

In any event, Mr. Law doesn’t think that we (the people who make the ads), our utterly befuddled clients (like Philips) who pay for them or anyone else should be the least bit disheartened by the requirements the Internet medium imposes on brand advertising. On the contrary, he feels that “Thankfully for today’s creatives, none of this is prescriptive or particularly limiting–in fact, it frees us to make even bolder creative leaps of faith.”

Leaps to where he doesn’t say, but one can only hope the clients referenced later in that New York Times article checked to see how well-folded their parachutes were before doing so. Clients such as Cheryl Barre, the CMO of Arby’s (purveyors of roast beef that could double as R-49 insulation in a pinch) who’s quoted as saying: “For the first time, this year we’ve allocated some significant resources to online media. We haven’t scaled back at all.” Or Betsy Lazar, executive director for advertising and media operations at General Motors (which managed to lose $3.8 billion in the first quarter this year) whose version of yelling “Geranimo” before taking the leap was to declare: “We have been shifting more and more resources to digital and will continue to do so.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think the Internet has no future as a vehicle for extraordinary advertising. But I refuse to believe the answer is to rewrite the very definition of extraordinary advertising to suit what the Internet can or cannot do well right now. No, the brand advertising clients are so eager to see (and place) on the Web will come when (and if) we find a way to deliver stories online that are every bit as engaging, entertaining and interesting as the best we currently do offline. Without a lot of scrolling, button pushing, screen loading and–saints preserve us, the barest minimum of robust configurating.