The split personalities of advertising people
When it comes to assessing advertising, some of those in the industry divide themselves into two people:
Person A
They have an excellent idea of what advertising needs to be for the general public. They gain this insight by looking at the advertising they experience on a daily basis and saying, ‘Wow, that’s really annoying. Being followed around the internet as a result of having your privacy invaded and your conversations spied on really sucks. There’s no way I’d ever recommend my clients to advertise in that manner because it would leave their brand with a sheen of negativity that encompasses untrustworthiness and general dislike.” They realise that big logos make them turn pages faster, cramming lots of stuff onto billboards makes them impossible to take in, and preroll makes people hate brands because they are responsible for a tedious delay in gratification. They know that programmatic digital buys can often result in ads appearing in unsavoury places where they are ‘watched’ by bots that the client then has to pay for.
Person B
They take an ad brief for preroll without question. They say that it’s just a little 5-15 second ad that’s kind of the price of running a site like YouTube. They increase logo sizes because they were asked to by a person in a slightly bad mood, and anyway, they’ll be able to enter the ‘awards’ version that ran once somewhere obscure and cheap. They recommend programmatic because it’s a great way to reach a lot of people for not a lot of money, and besides, everyone’s using it so can it really be that bad? They don’t really mind the idea of their ads following people around because the public understand it’s how ads work these days, and besides, it’s not their problem if the general public dislikes their client as a result – the general public hates all ads, so this one won’t really make much difference. They’ll make a poster with seven different typefaces and four different messages because it means their bosses will chill out and it won’t really affect their wages or career prospects because the aforementioned ‘award’ version will win a Creative Circle Bronze.
Of course this isn’t everyone, and of course I’m exaggerating (ever so slightly), but I do wonder why we often look at our work like ‘ad people’ and then get annoyed at the results when we look at them like ‘consumers’.
Unlike others, we can actually change the things that annoy us. We’re often there in the room with the people making decisions (hell, we might even be the people making the decisions), so we can use the facts to persuade clients to do what’s effective, interesting, disruptive, memorable and beautiful. Bus drivers, civil servants and zookeepers don’t get that privilege; they just have to suck up the bad stuff.
It’s like being in Number 10 Downing Street every day and saying ‘Yes, Theresa, Brexit is a great idea that will advance Britain’s position in the world and bring economic prosperity for all of her citizens,’ and not, ‘Hang on there, Theresa. Can I just show you this graph and these documents that prove Brexit is going to be a disaster for millions of people?‘
I’m not saying that 100% of clients will listen 100% of the time, and they might well have some pretty good graphs and documents of their own, but if you don’t fight the good fight you have to continue having the annoying experiences.
Next time you get the chance, do yourself several favours and make something both of you will enjoy.
This will never change unless person B stops being rewarded for behaving the way they do.
I agree with you completely
Whenever I say or post something like this, the response I always get from people is that they’ll get fired if they don’t do what they’re told to keep the client happy. This leads me to the conclusion that there is something deeply systemically wrong with the current culture of ad agencies and their relationship with clients.
This seems horribly unconnected to reality, Ben. Sorry.
How and why, Roy? I’m genuinely interested.
Have you seen the ads that follow you round then internet, Hamish? They’re not made by agencies that would be knocking out epic cinema ads if only they could talk their clients into it. They’re not even made by agencies with anything resembling a creative department.
And as for programmatic and pre-roll stuff, whilst I am not a fan or data-harvesting or social media in general (in fact I am starting to loathe it), their purpose is to ensure they’re seen by people who might conceivably be interested in buying the product. How can an agency reasonably object to that?
Roy,
Of course agencies don’t object to the theory of ads being seen by people who might be interested in them, but if that involves been spied on to a degree which many find scary, offensive or intrusive, then it does more harm than good.
And as far as the first point goes, like I said in my post, agencies are at the table talking to clients whose ads DO follow people around the net (even if that’s not always an ad they’ve created). It is a part of the entire brand/advertising experience and its our responsibility to call out how damaging it can be, or just remain hypocrites. Like a mechanic overhauling your engine beautifully but not caring that you then put glue in your petrol tank.
All fair points.
More generally, I wish it was like the good old days, I really do – although the fact that creative directors have had their wings clipped does mean they’re less likely to behave like arseholes – it’s just not going to happen. And it’s not through lack of will. It can’t happen.
How can anyone “prove” Brexit is wrong? It is in the future and there’s no precedent.
Plenty of negative consequences of Brexit have already happened.
And there is a precedent for having to have a hard Ireland/Northern Ireland border. It was crap for the people of Ireland and the soldiers who had to police it.
…are you in advertising Roy?
Yes. I am in advertising.