Bonehead Roundup
January 18th, 2007
Number One:
Ben beat me to it, but our good friend Ted over at Fizz Corp, alerted me to the recent NYTimes article, “Anywhere the Eye Can See, It’s Likely to See an Ad.”
Oh no.
Here’s the gist: The average person is inundated with around 5,000 advertising messages a day. And advertisers are seeing about a 4% return on investment (Copernicus Marketing Consulting, 2005). That’s not a good thing, especially when you, as an advertiser, are being held accountable. Solution? MORE ADS! Ads on subway turnstiles. Ads on eggs in the supermarket. Ads on public sidewalks. Ads on ads on ads. And ads on newborn baby’s heads right when they pop out. Okay, I made that one up – but you get the idea.
The bonehead quote of the article?
“We never know where the consumer is going to be at any point in time, so we have to find a way to be everywhere,” said Linda Kaplan Thaler, chief executive at the Kaplan Thaler Group, a New York ad agency. “Ubiquity is the new exclusivity.”
Again I say: Oh no.
Would someone tell Mrs. Kaplan about the Yankelovich study that says that 56% of the public intentionally avoids products that overwhelm them with marketing and advertising? Or the 70% of Americans that are interested in products that allow them to block out advertising?
This way of thinking is equivalent to the bad parent that yells at their kid all the time and – when the kid doesn’t respond – YELLS LOUDER.
P.S. Pay particular attention to the backlash from the public in the article.
Number 2:
AdWeek reports that “the American Legacy Foundation’s national smoking prevention campaign aimed at youth tackles social networking Web sites with the latest phase of the ‘Infect truth‘ campaign.”
Now I’m not gonna harp on them just now jumping on the social networking bandwagon, but here’s the part I am gonna harp on:
“With declining funds, ‘Truth’ seeks to put truth messages in nontraditional, easily accessible and effective media,” Joseph Martyak, Legacy’s evp, marketing, communications and public policy, said in a statement. “We stay ahead by being more cutting edge and going directly to teens in media and at places where they naturally gather.”
You gotta be kidding me. Are you just now figuring this out? That’s not staying ahead - that’s common sense and you should’ve done it from the very beginning. So now that you’ve run through tens of millions of dollars running cool TV ads and seen that the smoking rate does drop – but only when your ads are running and then goes back up when they don’t – you’re finally realizing that you have to put the movement in the hands of the teens. But only when you’re faced with a shrinking budget.
Ya know, the Truth ads have done a lot – but as far as a “movement” is concerned, it falls waaaay short. Shouldn’t it have been built as a sustainable movement from the beginning and not at the bitter end of the budget?
P.S. The article goes on to say – of course – that “The effort also will be supported by new TV ads and print executions.” Gotta have those media placement fees…especially when you’re addicted to them.
Other posts by Spike.
David says:
I saw the advertising on eggs thing earlier this week. Initially I said “ugh”. Then I thought, since eggs are so cheap anyway, why don’t advertisers “sponsor” the eggs and simply give them away. It would be kind of like Ryan Air in Ireland (I think). Every family gets their dozen “free” eggs every week and the advertiser get some good will and a little attention as we crack the eggs…
January 18th, 2007 at 10:47 amolivier blanchard says:
Did you read about Brazil working on passing laws to eliminate ad sprawl in some of their major cities recently? (Pretty much every square inch of concrete is being plastered with ads. Ridiculous.)
That being said, I find it strange that advertising on eggs hasn’t been followed by advertising on livestock yet. Imagine how many people you could reach by spray-painting your logo on chickens… or cows. Goats, even. Ambulatory billboards all over the countryside. Pure genius I tell ya.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:25 pmTransmission Content + Creative, Mark Goren, New Marketing Coach » Blog Archive » Overheard at 4:30 p.m. says:
[...] • Spike talks about some agency boneheads, responding to a NYT article titled “Anywhere the Eye Can See, It’s Likely to See an Ad.” [...]
January 18th, 2007 at 7:17 pmwlfldy says:
I’m not a marketing guru. I’m a simple consumer. I just wanted to say two things.
I see so many ads now that I no longer see them. Know what I mean? Same thing with the material I’m directed to read at work. I’m directed to read the same things, security briefs, safety briefs on a frequent basis. I am so soaked with the message I no longer appreciate it or pay attention to it.
I bought a package of 24 paper towels rolls. The brand name was clearly marked on the package and I liked them because they were perforated at half-sheet sizes. When I buy paper products, I buy bulk and store for months. When I store them I remove the outside packaging that has the brand name on it. When I reached the last roll of my 24 rolls I entirely forgot the brand name. I don’t understand why marketers don’t reallize that PUTTING THE BRAND NAME ON THE CARDBOARD ROLL would best market the product. It is the last thing I see of the item. If I want to replace it, I would know exactly what brand to buy cause the roll would inform me. Same thing with toilet paper. They’re really missing the boat on this one.
Hopefully, I’ve conveyed an idea to the right audience.
January 26th, 2007 at 7:07 am