4 ms·

Not too smug; the word is lazy. Smugness is a cover for lack of imagination and drive. And it's human nature. Most want to turn the crank, the same as they d

Not too smug; the word is lazy. Smugness is a cover for lack of imagination and drive. And it's human nature. Most want to turn the crank, the same as they did yesterday, collect their pellet, and strut around the barnyard. Nothing wrong with that as a life plan, but it's not the way to innovate or change your business.

bdickason 16y ago
I would argue that people in advertising are not smug or (abnormally) lazy. They are scared. For every great advertising campaign that ends up all over twitter/facebook/etc, there are 10 that bring consumer complaints, shame, and a negative image. People are scared to try new things because their client might get mad and fire them. To understand why this mentality exists, you need to get the 'media landscape.' The Client - Whoever is paying for the advertising. This could be Pepsi, Coke, or Trojan. Generally the actual person is a high-powered marketing exec with a VP+ title. The Media Agency - A middle-man group that manages the 'campaign' on behalf of the client. They recruit the different groups involved, pay them a bit, and run all the numbers for the client. In the end, they are judged on 1-2 'metrics' that the client cares about. This could be 'Performance' (# of ads clicked vs. ads viewed), 'Engagement' (# of times people click the play button in a video player, for example), or 'Share of Voice' (percentage of a website's views in a given time period that the brand owns). The Media Agency boss is generally a 40-something advertising hotshot. He is hands off on nearly everything once his company signs an exclusive deal with the brand. The Media Agency worker is generally a 20-23 year old who couldn't decide on a major in college so they went with 'international business.' They don't really use the internet much and are judged solely on the metrics mentioned above. In the end, advertising deals are closed based on: -Buying the agency a stripper or tickets to a hockey game -Being friends with someone at the agency -Being a website that someone at the agency visits every day I can go into a ton more detail on things like the ridiculous 'RFP Process,' Creative Agencies, and other stupid advertising things if the interest is there. p.s. I've worked in online advertising for the past 3 years and have no idea wtf the word 'media' means.
- smokinn 16y ago
  I think their fear stems from something else entirely. While what you mention is indeed a factor, I think the greatest factor is the fact that on the internet, ROI can be calculated. The metrics are much more precise and I have a feeling that there's been a LOT more money spent on advertising than was ever justified. I think this is just the effects of greater transparency on the client side. When the client can measure effectiveness, advertising prices plummet. I think the current dismal advertising revenue on the internet is actually what advertising revenue should've been all along.
  - patio11 16y ago
    To elaborate: If text ads are cheaper and demonstrably more effective than multimedia ads, and text ads can be created by literally typing for five seconds and letting the computer pick which line works best, then what does this imply for the careers of the Big Thinkers at the ad agencies? Here's a scary prospect: most insurance companies could fire everybody they have working in advertising, replace them with one 22 year old English major tasked with writing PPC copy, and make hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't think we're necessarily overspending on advertising... we're just overspending on ineffective advertising.
    - bdickason 16y ago
      I agree that on a straight CTR calculation, ad agencies could make a killing on text ads. However, I also firmly believe that you have to pay more to effectively reach certain people. Example: Men tune out banner ads. Especially internet-savvy ones. If you want to reach them, you have to either do something incredibly cool (like sponsoring FilePlanet to have no download queues for a day or Virgin America to have free in-flight wireless) or incredibly annoying (like those big 'stunts' you see on nytimes.com occasionally).
  - commieneko 16y ago
    You have it half right. Online advertising is helping to show that the effectiveness and efficiency of advertising is a chimera. The other half is that the nature of media is changing from a strictly on to many relationship to a many to many relationship. Not only can't you control the message to your customers/consumers, but you can't shut off the flow of information between customers and, even worse, you can't stop the flow of information _back_ at you from your customers. In this kind of climate, trying to patch over a flop or take credit for a win is very difficult. And it doesn't help that the economy is in the toilet while all this is going on...

bdickason 16y ago

I would argue that people in advertising are not smug or (abnormally) lazy. They are scared. For every great advertising campaign that ends up all over twitter/facebook/etc, there are 10 that bring consumer complaints, shame, and a negative image. People are scared to try new things because their client might get mad and fire them. To understand why this mentality exists, you need to get the 'media landscape.' The Client - Whoever is paying for the advertising. This could be Pepsi, Coke, or Trojan. Generally the actual person is a high-powered marketing exec with a VP+ title. The Media Agency - A middle-man group that manages the 'campaign' on behalf of the client. They recruit the different groups involved, pay them a bit, and run all the numbers for the client. In the end, they are judged on 1-2 'metrics' that the client cares about. This could be 'Performance' (# of ads clicked vs. ads viewed), 'Engagement' (# of times people click the play button in a video player, for example), or 'Share of Voice' (percentage of a website's views in a given time period that the brand owns). The Media Agency boss is generally a 40-something advertising hotshot. He is hands off on nearly everything once his company signs an exclusive deal with the brand. The Media Agency worker is generally a 20-23 year old who couldn't decide on a major in college so they went with 'international business.' They don't really use the internet much and are judged solely on the metrics mentioned above. In the end, advertising deals are closed based on: -Buying the agency a stripper or tickets to a hockey game -Being friends with someone at the agency -Being a website that someone at the agency visits every day I can go into a ton more detail on things like the ridiculous 'RFP Process,' Creative Agencies, and other stupid advertising things if the interest is there. p.s. I've worked in online advertising for the past 3 years and have no idea wtf the word 'media' means.

smokinn 16y ago
I think their fear stems from something else entirely. While what you mention is indeed a factor, I think the greatest factor is the fact that on the internet, ROI can be calculated. The metrics are much more precise and I have a feeling that there's been a LOT more money spent on advertising than was ever justified. I think this is just the effects of greater transparency on the client side. When the client can measure effectiveness, advertising prices plummet. I think the current dismal advertising revenue on the internet is actually what advertising revenue should've been all along.
- patio11 16y ago
  To elaborate: If text ads are cheaper and demonstrably more effective than multimedia ads, and text ads can be created by literally typing for five seconds and letting the computer pick which line works best, then what does this imply for the careers of the Big Thinkers at the ad agencies? Here's a scary prospect: most insurance companies could fire everybody they have working in advertising, replace them with one 22 year old English major tasked with writing PPC copy, and make hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't think we're necessarily overspending on advertising... we're just overspending on ineffective advertising.
  - bdickason 16y ago
    I agree that on a straight CTR calculation, ad agencies could make a killing on text ads. However, I also firmly believe that you have to pay more to effectively reach certain people. Example: Men tune out banner ads. Especially internet-savvy ones. If you want to reach them, you have to either do something incredibly cool (like sponsoring FilePlanet to have no download queues for a day or Virgin America to have free in-flight wireless) or incredibly annoying (like those big 'stunts' you see on nytimes.com occasionally).
- commieneko 16y ago
  You have it half right. Online advertising is helping to show that the effectiveness and efficiency of advertising is a chimera. The other half is that the nature of media is changing from a strictly on to many relationship to a many to many relationship. Not only can't you control the message to your customers/consumers, but you can't shut off the flow of information between customers and, even worse, you can't stop the flow of information _back_ at you from your customers. In this kind of climate, trying to patch over a flop or take credit for a win is very difficult. And it doesn't help that the economy is in the toilet while all this is going on...