We are all getting used to using Google maps, the GPS map on our phones and in our cars, to find places. We follow that very patient lady to our destination (it’s so good that she stays calm when we miss a turn). But imagine if the brands we ‘liked’ were allowed to sponsor these turn by turn directions, so that instead of taking us by the fastest route they took us by the route that had their billboards or better still their stores? Given the GPS system would know where we were, it could choose to show us an advert on the screen saying that we were about to pass a certain store that was having a sale, or give us a coupon etc. In other words the map would cease to be a map but would instead become a form of advertising. Imagine then that the map also gave you social content, such as the Trip Advisor reviews of hotels, the Open Table reviews of restaurants and the Yelp reviews of stores. Right now my car GPS will show me there is a gas station coming up, which can be a help. Would it be a help to know that if I went a mile further I could buy cheaper gas? I suspect many would say yes to that kind of feature…
I just read a short book that interviewed advertising guru Charles Saatchi, of Saatchi & Saatchi fame. In it he refers to a period in advertising when people actually looked forward to commercial breaks because the advertising was that entertaining. People it seems looked forward to the latest ad from brands in the way they now get excited about the next movie staring their favorite celebrity. I remember that era and he’s right. I recall wanting to see the latest Levi ad before the start of a movie. The closest we get to this now is a Budweiser ad during the Superbowl. That’s sad. Very sad.
My point here is that marketing should entertain as well as inform. It should get us on the edge of our seats waiting to be sold to. In a way Apple has adopted this approach by on the one hand helping fuel rumors about its latest products (see all the rumors around the tablet for example) and on the other making sure it says nothing publicly. In short we are all dying to find out what Apple will do next. This is a launch though, so building hype is to be expected. But what can brands do to build expectation into their marketing AFTER a product is launched? I’d argue that marketing has lost the art of entertaining and is too wrapped up in having a dialog that is focused on the ‘key points.’ Talking about the key points after the news is out gets, well, boring. Also, as a consumer I don’t want to spend all my time in a serious conversation with a brand. I want that brand to entertain me, surprise and even shock me. Not in the Tiger Woods way perhaps but you get my drift.
2009 was a year when everyone feared for their jobs and people ran a mile from risk. In the race to avoid risk, they also avoided anything that was just plain fun. Please let’s not repeat that in 2010. Let’s create marketing programs that have a serious conversation but which also engage with customers in other, less serious ways. Ways that may be harder to rationalize but which we all know just plain work. Let’s have a Happy New Year.
NPR stations have been doing their pledge drive lately. One of their appeals for members said that roughly $45 Billion is spent each year on TV and radio adverts. This equates to $208 per viewer/listener per year they say. They rather neatly point out that this money comes from the viewers and listeners as they buy the products that get advertised and some of that money is then spent on that advertising. They then go on to point out that some of your $208 is spent with radio stations you hate. Good point. Indeed I hate commercial radio for the most part because of the ads, which is why I listen to NPR most of the time. This got me thinking though. If the average listener/viewer has $208 spent on them each year for TV and radio adverts, then I’d assume they get about the same again from all the other paid advertising approaches such as print ads, online ads, billboard ads and sponsorships. That means that each of us is spending roughly $400 a year to persuade ourselves to buy things.
This number may seem high or low depending on how you look at it. To me the number looks very low when I think of how many products and services a year that I buy. I’d guess I buy products and services from over 100 brands a year. That means they each get roughly $4 a YEAR of my money to spend on advertising to me. Which means the adverts would need to be pretty darned amazing don’t you think? Put another way, it seems almost pointless to spend money on advertising…
Boeing recently launched the 787 a totally new type of commercial airliner. It seems to be a huge success with 677 orders already on the books. Despite this rather long waiting list they today placed a full page color ad in the Wall Street Journal on the back of the first section. This seems an odd move to me. Looking at the ad I can’t help but feel that the real reason they ran it was that in all the press coverage they got about the launch of the plane, few, if any, mentioned that it was launched on 7/8/07 (get it?). Indeed the whole purpose of the ad seems to be to point out that they launched the plane on that date, which is now 10 days ago. I guess with 677 orders they can afford to waste moeny on ads that simply point out an aspect of their marketing program that is now out of date…
The FT has just posted this article. Hot on the heels of the ban on billboards in Beijing come these moves in the UK.
Spread the word about the benefits of advertising
By Jamie Whyte
Published: June 26 2007 18:31 Last updated: June 26 2007 18:31
Advertising is unpopular with those concerned for our welfare. They see it as a kind of coercion, making us “want things we do not really need” and, sometimes, things that are positively bad for us. Ban the ad, they demand.
Modern regulators are happy to oblige them. On Sunday, two moves to tighten up on advertising junk food to children come into force in the UK. Ofcom, the media regulator, introduces new content rules (including banning the use of celebrities), prior to banning advertising of foods high in fat, sugar or salt during television programmes popular with under-16-year-olds next January. The Committee of Advertising Practice, an industry group, is bringing in similar content rules for press, posters and paid-for internet space.
Jason Leow of the WSJ wrote yesterday about the removal of 90+ billboards on China’s Golden Avenue in a bid by the city sanitize the city’s image. He reports that the crackdown appeared to start on the advertising of luxury homes. Now, he went on, as a part of a massive urban reorganization exercise the advertising ban has been extended across much of Beijing.
This is reminiscent of a similar move in New Delhi a few years ago where thousands of illegal billboards were removed so you could actually see the city. At the time there wasn’t actually that much to see but a lot has changed since and presumably the city planners in Beijing expect their city to continue to evolve and would prefer that billboard proliferation not be a part of the outlook.
This of course poses a huge headache for brands that relied on these billboards to get their messages across, however unsubtly. So as the city tries to prevent itself from being one giant Times Square or Piccadilly Circus it will be interesting to see where those ad dollars go that would have promoted all those luxury cars and condos. I suspect the ad agencies will have some ideas on how to spend the money but maybe some PR execs should be putting their thinking caps on too.