Ordinary Advertising

Here I’ve been writing about advertising, marketing, economics and business for the last several years thinking others shared my fascination with these subjects, (and meanwhile harvesting an average of about one comment for every five posts). Then I go and post one little thing about an obscure book I stumbled across and boom! My response rate quadruples.

So maybe that’s what my readers really are: Readers. And thus, what they’re most interested in hearing about is books, not this stupid advertising business. If so, then I’ve got a great suggestion that should keep you busy while I’m off gallivanting around the countryside for the next ten days: Middlemarch.

Yes, that Middlemarch, by George Eliot. And yes, I know most of you probably read it in some English Lit class back in college. But I also suspect many of you spent a good portion of those classes doing the same thing I did. (And trust me, that individual sitting in front of you would never have consented to assuming the position you had in mind nor been able to maintain for longer than thirty seconds without suffering extensive damage to the lumbar region.)

So go back and read it again. Then tell me if Ms. (or should it be Mr.?) Eliot didn’t produce one of the most astounding MRI scans of human nature ever rendered. An exegesis of the venality, vanity and vapidity encoded in the DNA of several personalities all of whom could just as easily be walking the streets today as opposed to 136 years ago. But what writer today, I ask you, could capture them with such scathing honesty and disarming wit?

It seems to me that in this circle jerk of solipsism we find ourselves inhabiting today, not many authors can tear their eyes off their navels long enough to grind out anything this perceptive, let alone exquisitely crafted. But see for yourself and let me know what you think. At the very least, it’s not the worst way to kill time between episodes of Mad Men.

So far I’ve heard from three readers in response to my last post/poll. Not exactly a groundswell of support, but heartfelt all the same. Consensus would seem to be, as Pam Morrell put it: “If you are talking to ad creatives like me, you are preaching to the already converted.” (Already converted and not too inclined to put much in the collection plate, I might add.) But then she goes on to say: “I wish you could infiltrate the ranks of the client community.” (From your lips to God’s ear, Pam, as long as I don’t have to dress the way they do.)

Gloria Quigley was kind enough to pass along this definition of quixotic: “caught up in the romance of noble deeds and the pursuit of unreachable goals; idealistic without regard to practicality.” So, in other words, I’m trying to throw horseshoes with my tongue is what I believe Gloria is trying to tell me. However, she also made reference to an article in People magazine she’d read a while back reporting on a study that showed “people who don’t have a clue don’t have a clue that they don’t have a clue.” Not what this particular Professor Plum was hoping to hear, but probably an accurate assessment of at least some portion of the advertising/marketing community.

And Jim Bosha went so far as to post his rather post-Apocalyptic take on things here where you can read it at your leisure.

So where do I come out? Right now, I’m just hoping the volume of e-mail cures me of this tendency to act like CNN, where the length of the report is often inversely proportionate to the amount of news contained therein.

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.” Continue reading ‘Beats A Maillot I Guess’

Every once in a while I run across a small article, (in this instance, three short columns buried at the bottom of the page in yesterday’s New York Times) that truly speaks volumes. This one bore the headline: “Citi’s New Slogan Is Said to Be Second Choice.” And what I found so intriguing was not only what the article said, but what was so clearly written between the lines.

The article begins by noting that Citigroup is doing the old Lazarus act with its venerable “The Citi Never Sleeps” slogan. Then, it goes on to say: “But Citigroup’s marketing brain trust (one of my favorite terms) passed on that same idea a year ago, said people with direct knowledge of the branding initiative…” People, who the article goes on goes on to explain: “…spoke anonymously because of the confidentiality of the discussions.” (People, who in other words, are still employed on either the client or agency side but couldn’t resist the opportunity to leak the back story to this debacle redux.) Continue reading ‘Sleeper’

Probably because the first time I heard this industry axiom I was in the midst of having my copy worked over, word by word, for the umpteenth time by the legendary wordsmith, Tom Thomas, I found it a little hard to accept. And I don’t think I was entirely wrong either, as I later learned that this is another of those advertising shibboleths that’s been foisted upon us by the always-eager-to-help copy-testing industry. Starch, I believe, was the culprit here, insofar as its print ad testing methodology appeared to show that even an ad that scored well for being “noticed” was lucky if a piddling 20% of the audience “read most” of it. Of course, the fact that most extraordinary print ads were never even subjected to this Derridian exegesis and thus were not part of Starch’s “norms” was never factored into the equation, which may have skewed these findings just a little.

Be that as it may, if you ask me (and by reading this you essentially are), any headline that manages to stop a reader owes that reader something of value for having stopped. And that something is the body copy. Which brings me to these print executions from www.wecansolveit(unlessit’sordinaryads).org. Continue reading ‘No One Reads The Body Copy’