Lets be honest from the outset. Online advertising in the traditional sense of the term, e.g. display advertising, is in the most part fairly dry, fairly average and goes largely unnoticed. Its stuck at the side or top of a page and is seen mostly as a nuisance by people who have gone to a website to read an article/play a game/watch a video. However, its does serve a purpose, bankrolling the most efficient business development since Henry Ford thought it was a good idea for people to stand in a line and do one thing and one thing only. It (the internet) is still only 15 years old, and ten of those years have been spent being processed by a 56k connection. Its safe to say its in its infancy, and we're all figuring out what to do with it and how we can make it better.
Back to online advertising... As the biggest growth form of advertising in the UK it is coming under increased scrutiny, particularly by those people who work for forms of advertising that are stagnating (e.g. outdoor, press). Scrutiny is a good thing of course, the absence of it will invariably lead to complacency and crapness. However scrutiny requires coherency, certainly not what can be said for a post I read here. In this post a disgruntled above the line creative wangs on about how unimpressive some digital creative work that recently picked up a silver pencil. The crux of 'Scamps' issue appears to be this - you play with the ad (childish), it does what it says (predictable) and it doesn't have a deep cultural relevancy (stupid).
Furthermore he continues to say that the fact that Nike's St. Wayne didn't win any awards, supposed childish, predictable and stupid work is getting lauded whereas 'artistic' advertising is getting ignored. There are two issues at stake here - one with how digital advertising is made, and by that I mean the budgets assigned to them and the timings in which they're made. The second is the artistic and cultural relevancy ascribed to advertising (all mediums).
Firstly, the production process. Digital advertisings budget is minute when compared to ATL, particularly in terms of media. And as creative budgets are a reflection of media spend, inevitably they are a lot less than ATL. As a result shoots have to be done on a shoestring, concepting time is shortened and research an expensive luxury. Therefore, it is inevitable the the raw aesthetics of the ads are not going to match those which have had ten times the budget.
Secondly, perception of advertising. There seems to be a belief held that advertising genuinely contributes to the cultural composition of our country. It does not. It is a means to an end. That end is selling products/brands. Yes, brand awareness is also a factor but if you strip it away, people want their brand to be recognized because they want to sell more. Not for the fuck o it. Therefore, the argument should not be is that a creatively innovative ad. It should be 'does that ad work?'. The two go hand in hand, however pivoting any critique around the former whilst neglecting the latter borders on the ridiculous. The point should be - when will an online campaign win an IPA Effectiveness paper? Not until we address the imbalance in budget and time spent on digital when compared to above the line.
Comments