Dave’s Take

According to a recent eMarketer report, U.S. online advertising expenditures are expected to grow over 23% this year, raising total outlays to over $39 billion! This amazing sum is even more incredible when you learn that total print advertising will fall over $3 billion from last year, for a less than spectacular total of $33.8 billion. “Advertisers’ comfort level with integrated marketing is greater than ever and this is helping more advertisers…put a greater share of dollars online,” states eMarketers’ principle analyst, David Hallerman.

While I totally understand the jump in online sales, I am still having major problems with clients who think that social media is the end all to beat all. As I have blogged before, studies have proven that social media sites are great at spreading word of mouth recommendations on products and services already tried, but are flat out lousy at introducing a new product or service. In other words, product/service debuts still require the usual mix of standard advertising avenues – print, broadcast, etc. and that is something clients need to learn and agencies need to reinforce. I hope to never take another meeting with a potential client who tells me, “We just want to stay fluid…you know, twitter and Facebook.”

No, I don’t know and the facts don’t either. Every competent ad consultant knows social media is a now crucial element in most campaigns, but not the ONLY driving force. Some people are under the mistaken impression that all one needs for a successful ad campaign is a few dedicated tweeters and “presto”, the phone starts ringing. Wrong. A few dedicated tweeters can really help maximize the branded message of a product, but only once it has been established through more traditional channels.

The limitations on social media are even truer with video. The one question clients sometimes pose to me that I really have trouble answering without rolling my eyes is, “How do we get us a viral video?” First off, if I knew the answer to that question, I wouldn’t be meeting with you, I would be cashing checks in Tahiti. Nobody and I mean NOBODY knows how to make a video go viral. It’s just that certain something that connects with viewers that makes a video go viral. Secondly, how many viral videos can you name that actually sold a product or service? Cute cats playing the piano are one thing, but trying to get that cat to endorse Steinway is a whole different kettle of fish. For the most part, viral videos are for amusement purposes only.

Social media has its place and that place will continue to grow and evolve. The need for branded messaging through more conventional channels will not change for the foreseeable future. SM should be thought of as the icing on the cake and not the cake itself. And speaking of cake, have you seen that cute video where the puppy tries to eat a cake right off the table?! I don’t know what kind of cake it is, but that puppy sure is cute!

According to a recent eMarketer report, U.S. online advertising expenditures are expected to grow over 23% this year, raising total outlays to over $39 billion! This amazing sum is even more incredible when you learn that total print advertising will fall over $3 billion from last year, for a less than spectacular total of $33.8 billion. “Advertisers’ comfort level with integrated marketing is greater than ever and this is helping more advertisers…put a greater share of dollars online,” states eMarketers’ principle analyst, David Hallerman.

While I totally understand the jump in online sales, I am still having major problems with clients who think that social media is the end all to beat all. As I have blogged before, studies have proven that social media sites are great at spreading word of mouth recommendations on products and services already tried, but are flat out lousy at introducing a new product or service. In other words, product/service debuts still require the usual mix of standard advertising avenues – print, broadcast, etc. and that is something clients need to learn and agencies need to reinforce. I hope to never take another meeting with a potential client who tells me, “We just want to stay fluid…you know, twitter and Facebook.”

No, I don’t know and the facts don’t either. Every competent ad consultant knows social media is a now crucial element in most campaigns, but not the ONLY driving force. Some people are under the mistaken impression that all one needs for a successful ad campaign is a few dedicated tweeters and “presto”, the phone starts ringing. Wrong. A few dedicated tweeters can really help maximize the branded message of a product, but only once it has been established through more traditional channels.

The limitations on social media are even truer with video. The one question clients sometimes pose to me that I really have trouble answering without rolling my eyes is, “How do we get us a viral video?” First off, if I knew the answer to that question, I wouldn’t be meeting with you, I would be cashing checks in Tahiti. Nobody and I mean NOBODY knows how to make a video go viral. It’s just that certain something that connects with viewers that makes a video go viral. Secondly, how many viral videos can you name that actually sold a product or service? Cute cats playing the piano are one thing, but trying to get that cat to endorse Steinway is a whole different kettle of fish. For the most part, viral videos are for amusement purposes only.

Social media has its place and that place will continue to grow and evolve. The need for branded messaging through more conventional channels will not change for the foreseeable future. SM should be thought of as the icing on the cake and not the cake itself. And speaking of cake, have you seen that cute video where the puppy tries to eat a cake right off the table?! I don’t know what kind of cake it is, but that puppy sure is cute!

The final numbers are in and the box office for 2011 was more than a disappointment, it was a disaster. As the final tallies are calculated, it seems that this was the worst year for movie ticket sales since 1995. The total sales of $10.22 billion marked a serious drop of over 3% from last year’s receipts. Industry experts are trying to soften the bad news by blaming it on higher ticket prices and the recession, but I think that’s just cover for an industry that has forgotten how to make things people want…and are willing to pay for.

The list of mediocre to horrible films cranked out in 2011 surpassed any recent year to my memory. There seemed to be an inordinate amount of monotonous movies foisted upon the public last year. While I was compiling this list, the number of just plain flat pictures almost overwhelmed me. I had to struggle to fight through the ‘simply bad’ movies to compile my ‘truly worst’ list. Same with the good ones—I really had to remind myself as to why I liked some of them. Perhaps it was because they had at least given me something to remember them for, as opposed to the endless number of nameless, mediocre releases I sat through in 2011. So, with these caveats in mind, here are my best and worst films of 2011:

BEST: (in no particular order)

Attack the Block, Carnage,
Tabloid, My Weekend With Marilyn,
The Descendants, The Adjustment Bureau,
The Guard, Cave of Forgotten Dreams,
Ides of March, The Artist,
Lincoln Lawyer, Midnight in Paris, Corman’s World

I will give Midnight in Paris my best picture of the year. As someone who is not a Woody Allen fan, I can only say that this movie totally surprised me with its plot twists and with a great performance by Owen Wilson.

WORST:

Super 8, Martha, Marcy, May, Marlene
Young Adult, New Year’s Eve,Twilight Breaking Dawn*,  Zookeeper, The Sitter*, Cowboys & Aliens, Jack & Jill, TheHangover II, Larry Crowne

* (I didn’t see)

I had a tough time limiting my worst to just 12, as last year delivered a record bounty of bad celluloid. I felt compelled to do something I have never done with my worst movies list—I included three flicks I did not personally see. How can I include something I didn’t even see? Because I was warned by friends NOT to see them and the published critical reviews proved my friends right. I felt compelled to include them because they were soooooooo very bad. I consider it my duty—sort of like a public service announcement for moviegoers. (Although anyone who thinks the premise of Adam Sandler playing himself and his sister is funny deserves to waste ten bucks on a turd like Jack & Jill.)

WTF? MOVIES:
These are two of the films I saw last year that left me wondering WTF?:

TREE OF LIFE – Don’t have any idea what this film was about. While it was confusing, it did have some great acting and cinematography.

DRIVE – Ryan Gosling’s performance is great, it just needed a script to go along with it. Lots of build up for an action pic without much action. It should have been called, “Parked” because it never drives anywhere.

One of my New Year’s resolutions is to see less bad movies. For the most part, I know how to avoid dogs; I just sometimes can’t help myself. I love movies and therefore I will get burned at the box office from time to time. Let’s just hope 2012 has less releases to bait me.

Let me get this out at the beginning of this post…I hate Christmas. Blame it on the weather, the crass commercialism, the aggressive mall crowds and the tacky decorations, but I hate the holiday season. And there is no other facet of the season I hate more than Christmas music. I can ignore everything about this ‘holiday’ except the music…the repetitive playing of the same 30 songs over and over again, wherever I go. Not only does every business from the car wash to the grocery store play these mind-numbing melodies, they play them loudly.

For the record, I am not a Grinch. I do my best to stay upbeat around people who insist on wishing everyone who cross their paths a, “Merry Christmas”, but the music, the horrible music is more than my tiny brain can handle. That’s why I was thrilled when I came across this posting on Jezebel, where they feature an NCAA-type of bracketing system for determining the worst Christmas song of all time. It’s truly shocking to see how many bad X-mas songs there are to vote for. (To see the brackets, go to: http://jezebel.com/5865954/december-madness-the-tournament-to-crown-the-worst-christmas-song-ever ).

My only problem now is how to choose which songs are truly horrible, as opposed to just really annoying. I mean how do you decide between such memorable losers like, “All I Want For Christmas is My Two Front Teeth”, versus “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer”? Or, even harder, between “I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas” and “Nuttin’ for Christmas”? It is truly too rich a bounty to decide without some serious thought.

Lest you think I only dislike novelty Christmas tunes, think again. I am still deciding between “Feliz Navidad” and “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” for the worst heart-felt carol. And I would be remiss if I did not mention “Mele Kalikimake”, the sole Hawaiian entry, as one of the most obnoxious songs to hear repetitively. Throw in “Little Drummer Boy” versus “Frosty the Snowman” and you can get a feel for how tough this contest can become.

Before you write me off as just some Bah-Humbug type, allow me to pose this question: Can you make it through an entire dental appointment with “Frosty the Snowman” and “Let it Snow” playing constantly in the background of your dentist’s office? I can’t. That’s why I avoid making dental appointments in December. Adding Christmas music to the mix is about the only way I know to make getting a root canal worse. And with the irritating practice of beginning Christmas marketing earlier every year, I may only be able to get my cavities filled in the spring. Just another reason to hate Christmas.

While I usually embrace new technologies and applications, I find the increased use of onscreen ‘bugs’ as one of the most annoying trends in broadcast television. Bugs are those little icons at the bottom of the screen that were originally designed to display the network’s logo for copyright protection. But once the practice was accepted, however reluctantly by the viewing audience, the cow was out of the barn. And now that bovine is running free all over the American airwaves with little chance of placed back in its corral. being

Where once was an empty corner of your TV screen, is now a prolific platform for all kinds of animated insanity. Greed has motivated the networks to evolve from simple ownership logos to fully animated promos lasting for several seconds. These new bugs are pushing the envelope of viewer patience. To me, they are like nails on a blackboard and I really want them to go away.

Not only are they annoying, but most of them are wasted on the wrong demographic. It seems as though the network suits give little thought as to what show or special they are plugging, they just like the idea that they are using as many pixels as possible. How else can you explain such questionable placement as ads for shows like “Rizzoli and Isles” getting pushed during live sports? Or, how about placing bugs for Nascar during first run airings of “American Idol”? Clearly, someone is missing the boat and viewers are expected to pay for it by having to endure on-screen bug ads for shows their demo clearly isn’t in to. Por que?

I understand that it is inevitable for marketers to market with everything at their disposal. But using robots with sound effects (FOX) just doesn’t work for me. It’s distracting and obnoxious. I would love to sit in a focus group when they test their latest ideas, but that would require the networks to actually care what their viewers think. And if there is one thing we all know, it’s that American television programmers seldom listen to those outside their bubble. How else do you explain “The Playboy Club”?

A recent contest in the online magazine, The Consumerist, has asked readers to name their choice for the worst TV ads in America. While that may be like asking, “How deep is space?” it reminded me to weigh in on my least fave commercials. Keep in mind these are only the worst of the ones currently running. I will update at the end of the year to rip the horrible Christmas ads we are all subjected to each December (and November, October, etc.). Here, in no particular order are my choices for immediate cancellation:

Luv Diapers, “Poop, There it is”: This is without a doubt the most disgusting animated ad currently running on the boob tube. In case you’ve missed it, this delightful ad features babies on a fashion runway instantly filling their diapers to the crowd’s delight. Each tot blows a bigger load than the previous model, resulting in a proud sense of accomplishment from each contestant. What point this spot makes eludes me…other than possibly explaining where baby poop comes from.

Toyota, “People Person”: This creepy example of advertising gone awry utilizes a strange combination of live action and animation to form a huge ‘people person’ comprised of several real people. As hard as it is to describe, it’s even harder to imagine what in the hell the creative team was thinking. How they ever pitched and then sold this concept is way beyond my understanding of successful TV advertising.

GEICO, every other ad. This is the only national advertiser who constantly either hits it out of the park or strikes out miserably. They use humor as well as anyone, but then rotate their funny ads with ones featuring their unfunny lizard. It’s almost like they have two creative teams — one funny, one annoying. I would love to see their internal polling on individual campaign success, as theirs must be all over the map.

Progressive Insurance, “Flo”: Flo, their national spokesperson, started out funny and odd, but now has just evolved to odd and annoying. Talk about running a concept into the ground…

AFLAC, the duck. What was once a mildly amusing concept has now become a parody of itself. Regardless of who’s doing the voice of the singing duck, this campaign has worn its audience out. It is annoying, obnoxious and needs to be put down as soon as possible.

Rest of the mess: Summer’s Eve, Activia Yogurt, State Farm, Car Fax and Medicare scam ads for scooters, diabetic meters and stair lifts all need a quick death. To vote for the ads you hate, visit: www.com/2011/10/vote-here-for-the-worst-ad-in-america-awards.html.

We can add ‘Back to School’ as yet another shopping tradition changed forever by mobile devices. According to industry experts, more shoppers are utilizing iPad and smart phones apps to fulfill their back to school shopping and fall apparel needs like never before. Consumers are embracing mobile technology to not only compare prices, but to actually purchase all the notebooks, pens, markers and loose leafs their offspring require for the new school year. “By and large, the majority of retailers at the moment are using mobile to add to the in-store experience,” stated the cofounder of the Hyperfactory mobile agency, Geoffrey Hardley. “The area of mobile commerce is definitely growing,” he added.

Growing is putting it lightly. Recently released statistics show that nearly 40% of college students and a full 30% of K-12 school kids shopped with tablets to fill their school supplies list this year. And while the kids may find it convenient and somewhat hip to shop via the web, their parents welcome the financial relief competitive pricing affords. Instead of the old way, placing the entire family in the minivan and heading to the store(s), parents can shop from the comfort of their couch.  Besides providing shoppers with the lowest prices available, shopping online also eliminates the possibility of adding unneeded items like CDs, make-up, video games and all the other window dressings offered to kids at the local mall.

Technology will continue to change the way we not only do business, but also the way we manage our daily lives. Clearly, the amazing pace of global technological evolution will continue to mold, direct and change our lives…hopefully, for the better.

As anyone who has ever worked in or around an agency media department can attest, one of the biggest deceptions agencies employ for their clients is the Nielson ratings for television viewership. As critics have pointed out for the past 30 years, the Nielsen system is flawed for lots or reasons, including: not being able to differentiate between impressions and actual viewers; ‘Nielson families’ are not necessarily representative of the general viewing audience; VCR/DVR use is not taken into consideration, etc., etc., etc. Even Nielson has acknowledged its problems by attempting such miserable innovations as creating rating boxes with scanning abilities so that it could scan a room and see just who is in it and if they were facing the television. (Hard to believe it didn’t work…as I am sure everyone would want a one-way scanner broadcasting from their living rooms on a daily basis.)

Undaunted by past failures, Nielsen is now spreading their questionable service to the last advertising venue to be rated – the Internet. Starting this month, Nielson will team with Facebook to provide advertisers a rough GRP (gross rating points) system to integrate with TV ratings so they can cross reference how many Facebook users watch any particular show or network. Nielsen hopes that by providing demographic breakdowns, including Facebook mentions to agencies, it will lead to more online ad spending and thus more subscribers. Until now, no one could quantify with any real degree of accuracy just how many unique views online ads create. If this new system works, sales reps can actually show clients real numbers.

If you think this all sounds familiar, you’re right. Last year, Nielson rival ComScore started its own online GRP service by partnering with such large companies as Kraft, P&G and Nestle. The jury is still out on its effectiveness, but that’s not stopping Nielson from pitching their service as the greatest thing since dial-up. Critics point out as much as 40% of reported online impressions are miscounted or completely made-up. They site such unknown variables as there’s no way to prove any online ad reached the intended viewer, or that if it did, there’s no way to know if the viewer was even located in America. Still other skeptics say a lot of online ads are hustled by click-farm scams that leave the advertiser believing (and paying for) a lot of viewer click-throughs that were never attempted by actual customers, but were part of a complex computer fraud sham.

I agree with industry experts who say we need a reputable online ratings agency. It is frustrating to not be able to guarantee a client’s online campaign reached its intended audience. I just don’t think Nielsen is the company to provide it.

Ever since I first saw Darrin try to get ‘Stephens’ added to the prestigious ad agency of McMann & Tate on the 60’s sitcom, Bewitched, I’ve wanted to see more ad agencies on television. As a young adman wannabe, I needed to see behind the curtains — to see just how Darrin came up with his brilliant ad campaign ideas; how the various agency departments worked as one to produce such great key lines as, “Don’t be wishy-washy, buy our dishy–washy!” (for a Japanese appliance client, no less). While far from politically correct, Bewitched was the first show that featured the ad biz as a backdrop and it was one of the reasons I ended up with a career in advertising.

Network TV has attempted to portray the advertising industry as one filled with boozing, secretary chasing, chain-smoking narcissists who win accounts by partying with clients and then parlaying that relationship into major business. From Thirty Something to Mad Men, advertising professionals have been made out to be whores, liars and thieves. Not that we all don’t know those kind of co-workers, it’s just that they are no longer the industry norm. But now, thanks to AMC, the public may finally get a glimpse of how real agencies work as they prepare to air their new series, ”The Pitch”.

The basis for the show is simple: each episode will feature two or three agencies competing for a new account. It will start with the agency’s creative teams traveling to the client’s HQ to get the scope of the project. They will then return home and share the next ten days of creative frenzy with the viewing public as they prepare their “pitch”. As in real life, the client will choose the best pitch and actually contract the agency to do the work. So far, AMC has announced that such prestigious companies as Yahoo and Kodak are on board the client side and are excited to participate. Unfortunately, the agency side is not so eager to sign-up. Big agencies that have declined to participate include BBDO, TBWA, Mullen, Gotham, GSD & M, Ogilvy, Grey and DDB.

Why, one might ask, have these ad giants declined to promote their brand on such an industry specific program broadcast to millions? Lots of reasons, including a fear of revealing the ‘secret’ way agencies create successful campaigns. On the other hand, some are worried that the program would prove once and for all; there are no ‘secret’ strategies and that allowing the public to see that truth would destroy current agency rate cards. No smoke, no mirrors…no real magic, just hard work. Other reasons range from the inability of the agencies to control the final cut to the simpler, why should we? “The conclusion we came to is that our people do their best work off camera,” stated Joe Grimaldi, CEO of the declining Mullen Agency. Personally, I’d be much more worried about conflicts of interest with existing clients or the morale killer a losing bid on national television would be to any agency’s creative staff.

The Pitch is scheduled to begin production in a matter of weeks, with an anticipated airdate in the first quarter of 2012. AMC claims that despite the high rate of refusals, they are confident they will fill a full slate of agency players soon. I think that’s a tad bit optimistic. Sure, you’ll find lots of small shops that need the exposure, but what will their final image be when the reality show mavens finish interfering by creating as much fake drama as possible? I think The Pitch is a gimmicky reality show that will do no real favors for the advertising agency business. It will either expose the lunacy and egomania that comprises much of the biz, or it will bore viewers to death with the nuts and bolts successful advertising relies upon. Either way, it’s a non-starter for both the advertising and television business. It’s unfortunate that the one agency that would be great in such a show is no longer in business…McMann, Tate & Stephens.

I have finally been driven to the end of my short rope over an aggravation everyone who goes online can appreciate…the utterly annoying and obnoxious practice of websites that monetize their home page with in-your-face advertising. I am talking about ads that go far beyond the acceptable limits of “look at me” online promotions and pop-ups. I am talking about sponsors that load videos lasting from ten to sixty seconds that blast their message to all within earshot without providing the option of turning them off. From movie trailers to the latest rip-off in weight loss, the use of these brash intrusions is growing and something has got to be done to stymie these Internet terrorists.

The ad that pushed me past my tipping point was one loaded within my favorite movie times website. This site is one of the few that features all the theaters and movies in just about every major American city. It has always posted lots of passive, movie related pop-up and banner ads. Apparently someone in their sales department got the brilliant idea of charging advertisers more money to blast (and I do mean blast) twenty-second commercials as soon as the site loads. These spots feature extremely loud music and a voice-over announcer that does his best Michael Buffer impression. These ads are so annoying that I have been forced to reluctantly remove their URL from my bookmarks. As I have long theorized, obnoxious ads like these fail not only in terms of delivering new business, but they are in all actuality, negative advertising.

Apparently I am not alone in my dissatisfaction with loud pop-ups. Numerous industry articles have recently reported on how intrusive banner and pop-up ads act to actually drive business away from sponsors. Basically, studies are proving that viewers will tolerate intrusive TV and radio ads as mere interruptions in their leisure viewing. That tolerant attitude dramatically vanishes when the viewer is actively seeking something specific (as are most people who surf the worldwide web). In these instances, customers are not only turned off by the intrusive ads, but are left with a pronounced negative view of the sponsor and or product. And once that opinion is internally registered, David Ogilvy himself can’t change it.

It’s critical for advertisers and their agencies to keep in mind a few simple basic rules for online campaigns: don’t be annoying with loud and obnoxious ads and always give the viewer the option of not watching your ad without having to leave the site. Those who refuse to follow the will of the public shall pay the price. And with all the economic problems the world’s consumers are currently facing, who needs to provide any more reasons to not spend money?