Why is advertising OK in some places but not in others?
One of the interesting/annoying things about advertising is that it seeks to go to where the people are.
That may sound obvious, but there appear to be strange rules to this.
Places where you get lots of people looking and can chuck ads at them ceaselessly include:
TV
The Internet
Magazines/Newpapers
Radio
Buses/Trains/Taxis
Places where you get lots of people looking but have to adhere to guidelines:
Cinema/DVDs (don’t interrupt the movies unless it’s in a way that we might not notice, eg: product placement)
Billboards (not too many please; they might spoil the lovely view of Marylebone Road)
Sports pitches/shirts
Places where you get lots of people looking but no ads:
Books (you do get a few ads in the back, such as chocolate ads in chick-lit etc, but otherwise this is a big no-no. Why?)
Phone (OK, people are listening rather than looking, but you could have an ad instead of a dial tone and lose nothing. Maybe get a few quid off the phone bill)
Public service things (Why have Barclays logos on the bikes but not Nike swooshes on Police uniforms, Boots logos on hospital bedsheets or Jeffrey Archer novels ads on public toilets?).
Ads seem to be there to offset the costs of things. Everywhere (legal) that you see an ad, someone is making some cash, so why can some surfaces take an ad without us getting fucked off? Sports pitches are an odd one because you’d think those massive logos would get in the way, both of our enjoyment of the games and the markings of the pitch. Then books often have plenty of spare pages at the back which could take ads but no one uses them to reduce the cover price by 50p. Why ads inside buses but not inside aeroplanes?
It seems that we have all made up a bunch of rules without actually talking to each other about it.
I guess that’s why this all appears to be so random.
I’m fairly sure Ryannair do have ads inside the aircraft. Stinking shitbags. And your thought about advertising in books really makes sense if you’re buying and reading them on a Kindle-type-thing.
Advertising in books has already been done, was done many years ago and had the same caliber of ads that you get in the back of newspapers, with miracle hair grow products and muscle increasing tablets but of course these were only in the less ‘classy’ books.
As with planes, you do get ads in their craft but only in the cheaper costing ones such as ryanair and flybe as the high priced Airlines don’t want to cheapen their brand appearance.
And to be honest sponsorship advertising (usually) is cheap and tacky.
…with regards to cheapening their brand, how about the fact BA now use their boarding passes as advertising space?
I wondered with a friend of mine who works in publishing why David Beckham did not have ads for Adidas or police sunglasses in his book or Jordan could have ads for something or another in her biography. In some cases I think the ads could be the best things in the book.
—
Would you allow an ad in your book Ben,and who would you approach?
—
It’s a bit soulless isn’t it really.
—
What about sponsorship of words in The OED, brands could own the definition of their product.
—
You don’t get ads places because most people don’t want to sell space on their stuff.
It’s seen as quite tacky to put ads on things. Things that have them are often seen as tacky, ITV for example. Or Easyjet and the scummy Irish one. On the other hand Virgin and BA say no (although they do put them in their mags).
If you write a good book you don’t want some tacky piece of shit printed in the middle of it. Surely?
As we keep hearing in this very blog, most ads are utter crap. If you could pick only the best ads to put in your stuff that would be great but if you’re selling ad space you’re not doing it for the glory are you.
Jim and ‘Me’: Most people do want to sell space on their stuff, they just don’t get offered enough money to make it worth corrupting their property.
I don’t really want ads in my book, but if Rentokil offered me ¬£10m for a page at the back, I’d put it in. Would it affect the words I had written? Nope, but it might affect the way people see my motives in writing it.
Fay Weldon wrote a book called The Bulgari Connection, which was basically sponsored by Bulgari. I’m sure it didn’t have the resonance of Life and Loves of a She-Devil, but maybe the money made up for it. 95% of authors can’t make a living just by writing books, so you’ve got to do something for the money.
Incidentally, after I’d written Instinct I thought about approaching all the brand names that were mentioned within it and asking for cash, but then I thought things might get a bit messy. It wouldn’t have changed the book, but it might have changed the way people saw it. People seem to like their books written only for their own sake, whereas movies and TV shows are often seen as more corruptible. This might be because it takes a hell of a lot of money to produce cinema/TV, but writing a book is virtually free.
Fascinating post, the movie Idiocracy comes to mind. if an ad was creative and tasteful id let someone glue it on my forehead. sure we all walk around in clothes with poncy logos. the problem is ensuring the quality of ads. Maybe you could head a Bad Copy Squad that break the fingers of bad copywriters. unfort 99% of us wouldn’t be able to wank for a month and there’d be a spike in Go Comapre ads for hand insurance.
Interestingly, in an interview with the creator of Mad Men he said they approach brands all the time. Hence Lucky Strike etc.
He says they are told they can pay to be in the programme but relinquish any say in how their brands are used and treated.
Anyone read those Girl with the Dragon Tattoo books? Chances are. They seemed to be peppered with very specific references to Apple. Seemed weird.
I once wrote an ad with a book in it
But the Dragon Tattoo fella is a Mac using type of guy, so the brand of his computer is relevant to his character.
My editor encouraged me to get very specific with certain things in my book, particularly military hardware etc., but I think it also counts for more everyday brands. Oddly, the more specific you get, the more universal your writing.
Saying that a bloke went to a pub and bought a whisky isn’t that interesting, but if you say that he went to the Dog and Duck in Deptford High Street and bought a double Glenmorangie, you’ve got a much better idea of what’s going on.
You get the idea he’s a bit of a malt cripple.
Did you notice Oakley sunglasses being given to the once trapped miners in Chile, after they had come up the exit chute last night?
—
‘Saying that a bloke went to a pub and bought a whisky isn‚Äôt that interesting, but if you say that he went to the Dog and Duck in Deptford High Street and bought a double Glenmorangie, you‚Äôve got a much better idea of what‚Äôs going on.’ Unless it’s a script when generality not specifics is what’s wanted, eh?
Fact Fans: Ian Flemming was the first author to use brand names in fictional literature when he wrote the Bond novels.
What’s interesting nowadays, though, is the up-and-coming trend of “un-endorsement” where companies send their rival’s products to the crappiest of celebrities to create negative associations towards it, more here:
http://tinyurl.com/3xhrrp6
In France, about 5 years ago, a mobile phone provider launched an offer where you could choose to listen to a 20sec ad before your call to halved it cost.
It was axed in 6 month as nobody wanted to waste its time listening to crappy ads.
I guess when it comes to ads, habits are hard to shift. Look at cabs with ‘brand content’ (excuse my french) i.e. screens with IBM-sponsored boring videos, they’re still not widespread.
The Steig Larsson books are full of IKEA products as well. Not really the place you want to find a Billy bookshelf. But maybe there are echoes of Mr IKEA’s Nazi leanings (new book out on these).