August 16, 2017

Report: Over 40% Of Mobile Ad Impressions Fraudulent


First the disclaimers: I'm not a researcher, I'm a copywriter.

When I print research results I try to use only 3rd party sources I trust. There are often no perfectly dispassionate sources and you have to use some discretion. But unlike idiot agencies, you shouldn't rely on Facebook to tell you what Facebook's metrics are.

Nevertheless, all research is modeling and interpretation so you always have to look at the source, the methodology and the credentials of the researchers before you take it too seriously.

Having said that, a report issued last week by Aki Kinetic and Marketing Science is pretty astounding. It claims that overall, 43% of mobile ad impressions they studied were fraudulent.

This remarkable result is based on a study of 1 billion ad impressions from nearly 1,000 mobile apps.

Marketing Science is the consulting company of Dr. Augustine Fou, whose credentials are pretty impressive. Here's a summary of what they found. Click to enlarge.
Second, here's a summary of a study conducted by Dr. Fou on viewability. The bottom line is that he found only 41% of ads were viewable on open exchanges vs 91% for "good publishers" -- another ugly blemish for ad tech and programmatic buying.







August 08, 2017

Proof I'm An Idiot


Before we get to today's indisputable proof that I am a complete idiot we have a long way to go, so stay focused.

First we start with Oath. As you may know, Oath is the new name of Yahoo's parent company. Yahoo's parent company used to be called Yahoo, but when Yahoo sold off everything it owned that was worth anything the remaining dregs were branded "Oath."

Only marketing people could come up with a name as alarmingly dumb, but we'll save that for another day.

Oath now owns Yahoo, AOL, and a bunch of other rotting media carcasses.

Working at Oath is a guy named David Shing. Shing is known as "Shingy" in certain circles. Shingy's title at Oath is "Digital Prophet" the same modest title he held at AOL for many years.

I love Shingy. He is so monumentally full of shit that he makes bozos like me seem sensible in comparison. He also has amazing balls. Not just the little dimpled Titleist kind of balls, but big inflatable multi-colored beach ball kind of balls. Anyone who can get up in front of audiences and get away with the incomprehensible horseshit he spouts is my kinda guy.

Plus he has the greatest  hair-do on the planet. Somewhere Between Jackie Kennedy and Phyllis Diller.

With that as background, I was reading a piece in The Drum a few days ago that was sent to me by the great Claudia Caplan. It had me very confused. It was an article entitled  "‘Brand love must be core to the DNA of the brand’: Oath launches new video series exploring emotional connections"

 The article stated that the video series was a group of "in-depth conversations" by Shingy with  "industry prodigies" to "explore the nuanced aspects of what drives brand love..."

As you can imagine, within seconds I was strenuously exercising my gag reflex. Just for starters...

- Are there 2 companies anywhere in the world that have destroyed their brands more thoroughly than Yahoo and AOL? In what bizarre universe do they have the balls to lecture anyone on "brand love?"

- Is there a more profitless prophet anywhere on the planet than the fabulous Shingy? What have his brilliant futuristic insights done that have created a nickel's worth of value for AOL?

But what really blew me away was the fawning, gee-whiz nature of the article.
  • Shingy was referred to as a "digital prophet" without a hint of irony, as if he really was one.
  • It posed the question, "what can brands do to make their customers fall in love with them?" as if "brand love" was a recognized fact instead of a steaming pile of marketing droppings.
  • It promoted the participants in this festival of horseshit as "some of the most respected and interesting minds in media, marketing, and entertainment" who were offering "one-of-a-kind insights and rare perspectives on how brands can make that crucial emotional connection with the consumer."
I read the article three times in utter disbelief. It claimed Shingy "represents a nexus of brand and individual, thinker and marketer, and analog and digital, making him the perfect choice to lead this conversation."

What kind of journalism is this?

What the fuck is going on here? I asked myself.

And then I saw it. Greyed out, near the name of the so-called "reporter", were the words "Sponsored by: Oath." The whole thing was a fucking ad masquerading as journalism.

You'd think a cynical old fox like me wouldn't be fooled by the despicable, corrupt games the online media are playing. But I was.

Is it any wonder that nobody trusts a fucking word they read from online "news" sites.

Except, of course, from bloggers.



August 02, 2017

Marketers And Millennials


Earlier this week, The Drum had a piece by Samuel Scott about marketing and millennials.  As an add-on to the piece, Scott interviewed me about my thoughts on the subject. The following is a reprint of that interview.

Samuel Scott: One rule in marketing is to 'hook ​ them while they're young', so marketers have usually devoted some of their budgets to that. After all, no one would want to purchase luxury cars in middle age unless they had seen ads for those cars their entire lives. How useful has this approach been in general over the decades? Has the usefulness of this practice changed in recent years?

Bob Hoffman: It depends on the category. People buy luxury cars in middle age that didn’t even exist when they were young (Tesla). But some products (Coke) are bought not because we saw an ad yesterday, but because of the ads we’ve seen for 20 (or 30 or 40) years. For the most part, advertising now because you think somebody’s going to buy your product in 20 years is stupid. We see that all the time in the car industry.

​Scott: A frequent comment about millennials is that they are still broke at worst or underemployed at best following factors including the 2008 financial crisis. How valuable of a demographic segment are they today? But even if they have less money today, will they not have more money tomorrow? What is the problem with brand advertisers targeting them with long-term goals in mind?

Hoffman: There’s nothing wrong with targeting millennials when appropriate. The problem isn’t targeting. The problem is obsession.

Scott: ​Of course, 'millennials' may be a demographic segment but they may not be a useful marketing segment. Why are there so many news articles and marketing essays today that focus on what millennials want as though they have a single identity and set of characteristics?

Hoffman: There is just as much diversity within generations as there is between generations. The idiotic idea that all millennials are this or all baby boomers are that is just the stupid lazy thinking that makes most of marketing a joke. Remember, marketing consultants and researchers have to make a living. So every few years they have to come up with new 'generational' bullshit to sell to jackasses in marketing departments and ad agencies.

Scott: Most news articles out there portray millennials in a negative light. They are supposedly narcissistic, selfie-absorbed snowflakes who are lazy and want trophies for everything. I don't believe that. But why does everyone have those negative perceptions?

Hoffman: You can always find a component of any population that is lazy, self-absorbed and narcissistic. Nothing new here. But because culture and technology change, the manifestations of laziness, self-absorption and narcissism change. Consequently there is always something that seems new to write about. It’s horseshit, but it’s good copy.

​Scott: ​ Many marketers believe in segmentation. But is there not a case for some B2C products and platforms with millions of users such as Snapchat or Coca-Cola targeting a broad demographic group such as millennials?

Hoffman: Sure. At different age stages we use different types of products.

Scott: From what I have read, baby boomers have all the money and are projected to live a very long time. So, why do you think that marketers ignore them?

Hoffman: I could write a text book on this subject. In short, marketers ignore mature people because we hate them. All the 'reasons' for ignoring older people are bullshit. Ignoring mature people and obsessing over millennials is just narcissism disguised as strategy. It is marketing by selfie-stick.

Scott: Can you cite any examples of brands losing sales or market share by focusing on millennials?

Hoffman: Scion targeted millennials, although at the time people over 35 bought 88% of 'youth vehicles'. It succeeded in becoming the car brand with the youngest owner population — and it went out of business.

Scott: What do you recommend brands do in the future in terms of generational targeting?

Hoffman: I recommend they ignore the ignorant, lazy thinking of generational cliches. Stop trying to hold a mirror up to your target and saying “we’re just like you”. Advertising should be about the desirability of your product, not your superficial assumptions about who I am.

Scott: What do you wish digital-focused millennials would know about traditional marketing and advertising?

Hoffman: I wish they knew how much they don’t know.

Scott: Lastly, I myself straddle the border between Generation X and the millennials. Generation X has always gotten lost in the debate. What do you think of us?

Hoffman: I think you’re all lazy, self-absorbed and narcissistic.

                                                                                 ***

In other news...
I have a new website which you are welcome to visit here.
The Australian Financial Review did a nice story on my misgivings about online advertising here.

July 17, 2017

Brand Preference Vs Brand Love


Today's post first appeared in my newsletter this week.

There is only one essential job for marketing - to acquire customers.
Everything else marketing does is a footnote. This is why the current obsession with social media is largely misguided.
People are far more likely to use social media to follow a brand they currently use than a brand they don't. It is very reasonable to assume that the vast majority of people following your brand on social media are already customers. And usually they are a tiny component of your user base - well under 1/10 of one percent.
Consequently, most of the money you spend on social media is spent talking to a tiny group of people who are probably already using your brand.
Every hour and dollar spent talking to these people is a dollar and hour not spent on acquiring new customers.
The justification for this is usually some fuzzy nonsense about "brand love." It comes from that infantile school of marketing that believes if you shower people with social media or "content" - whatever the hell that means -- they will fall in love with your brand.
Here is a recent chart from McKinsey. Frankly, I can't vouch for the methodology or the conclusions, but even if it's only half-true it demonstrates pretty convincingly the daunting limitations of "brand love."
 There is obviously nothing wrong with trying to communicate with some of your customers through social media and trying to build a nice relationship. It's a matter of perspective. It is reasonable to devote a small component of a marketing budget toward that. If you do it well, your objective should be modest -- to maintain or motivate brand preference.
However, spending a lot to chase the chimera of brand love is usually a wasteful and largely empty exercise. The idea that social media creates brand love is a fantasy. A recent article published in the Harvard Business Review reported that...
“Across 16 studies, we found no evidence that following a brand on social media changes people’s purchasing behavior."
I'm sorry to tell you this, but most people just don't care that much about your paper towels. And if some do, and they follow you on social media, it's not likely to change their buying habits.
Unfortunately, we have been lead to accept a very seductive philosophy based on the fantasy of brand love. It is founded on the expensive, wasteful delusion that people want to have "conversations" with brands, read and share "content" about brands, co-create with brands, and several other flavors of childish nonsense (for a great read on this subject, particularly for creatives, I suggest "Nobody Wants To Read Your Sh*t" by Steven Pressfield.)
Our brands are critically important to us marketers but in the vast majority of cases not very important at all to most consumers.
Instead of spending a lot of money trying to convince a small number of people to love your brand, your money would be much more wisely spent trying to convince a lot of people to like it.
I'll be taking some time off from the blog for vacation and to finish up my new book. See you in a few weeks.

July 12, 2017

Why All Advertising Philosophies Are Wrong


As a former ceo of a few ad agencies I think I know something about how agencies work.

One of the core principles of the agency business is to develop a philosophy about the advertising process that differentiates you from your competitors. Then you give it a name -- you "brand" it -- and you speak to your clients and prospects in the language of this brand credo.

There's nothing evil about this. I did it when I ran an agency, and almost every agency does it.

The only problem is that it is inevitably wrong. The reason it is wrong is that advertising success is about likelihoods and probabilities, not certainties. But there is no agency in the world that is brave enough to say out loud that their philosophy is contingent and uncertain.

For brand marketers, there are no straight lines in advertising. You cannot assume that if you do this, that will happen. The best you can do is infer likelihoods.

I believe in the power of probability (by the way, I wrote a curious and highly unpopular little pamphlet about this called Quantum Advertising.)

I am often asked to speak at conferences and I sit there and listen to speakers talk with great certainty about how whatever it is they happen to be selling is the root of great brand success. I don't buy it.

If you tell me that advertising success is all about emotion, I'll show you a hundred campaigns that were successful with no emotional factors. If you tell me that advertising success is all about logic, I'll show you a hundred successful campaigns that were completely logic-free.

You want to claim that all advertising success is based on strategy? I'll show you a hundred successes with no discernible strategy. You want to claim it's always about creativity? I'll show you a hundred successes my dog could have written.

What does skepticism about fixed advertising philosophies - and belief in the power of probability - mean in the real world? It means...
  • The more people who see your advertising the more successful it is likely to be
  • The more people who remember your advertising the more successful it is likely to be
  • The more people who like your advertising the more successful it is likely to be
  • The more people who have an emotional reaction to your advertising the more successful it is likely to be
  • The more people who agree with the logic of your advertising the more successful it is likely to be
These may seem like platitudes, but it is remarkable how many marketers waste money creating messages that are directed only at their fans, are immediately forgettable, are crass and unlikable, are emotion-free, and cliché-ridden.

Does this mean that advertising that is pervasive, memorable, likable, emotional and/or logical is guaranteed to be successful? No. It just means it's more likely to be successful. And that's all you get in advertising.

If you want to be a simpleton who believes in certainties, get into politics.

July 10, 2017

A Day In The Life Of A Blogger


4:50 AM - Wife’s Alarm Goes Off
First decision of the day: Divorce or hit man?

5:15 AM - Roscoe The Dog Starts Barking
Second decision of the day: What to throw at him? Shoe or iPad?

7:00 AM - Wake Up, Get Out Of Bed, Drag A Comb Across My Head
Oops. No hair. Drag a wash cloth across my head

7:30 AM - Meet My Breakfast Boys At Coffee Shop
Discussion: Ailments, Medications, Basketball, Trump

8:15 AM - Return Home

Read nasty emails from people who hate me


8:30 AM - At Home Office
Write nasty emails to people who hate me

9:00 AM - Decide Not To Do Much Today
It’s a great habit to develop

9:30 AM - Check Bank Account To See If Nigerian Prince Has Deposited The $22 Million
Not yet.

10:00 AM - Rummage Through Old Unpublished Blog Posts To See If There’s Anything I Can Use For Tomorrow
Not a fucking chance

10:15 AM - Start Writing Blog Post For Tomorrow
Realize I've written this same post 20 times before

10:20 AM - Decide I Need To Think A Little Before Writing Blog Post
Maybe checking Facebook will help. (Or porn sites!)

10:30 AM - Receive Invitation To Speak At “The Real-Time Customer Journey Optimization Insider Summit”
Third decision of the day: Slit wrists or jump off building?

11:00 AM - Go For Swim
With every stroke, wish it was over.

12:00 PM - Buy A Tunafish Sandwich
Fourth decision of the day: Chocolate milk or apple juice?

1:00 PM - Check To See If There’s A Baseball Game On Television
No. Need a different excuse for not writing blog post

1:05 PM - Get An Email From Former Colleague Telling Me How Much He Hates His Agency
Feel ashamed but nevertheless bask in my Schadenfreude

1:30 PM - Check “To Do” List To Make Sure I Haven’t Done Anything
Clean bill of health

2:00 PM - Cancel Meeting I’m Supposed To Be At Tomorrow
Hasn’t today been exhausting enough?

2:30 PM - Start Panicking About All The Shit I Haven’t Done
Decide to review the status of my projects

2:40 PM - Review Novel I’m Supposed To Be Working On
Get depressed because it sucks

2:50 PM - Review Book About Ad Tech I’m Supposed To Be Working On
Get depressed because it sucks

3:00 PM - Review Speech I’m Giving Next Week In London
Get depressed because it sucks

3:30 PM - Try To Get United Airlines On Phone
What was I thinking?

4:00 PM - Check Email
Why do all these people want to join my LinkedIn network? Didn’t even know I had a LinkedIn network. Who knew there were so many award-winners, storytellers, founders, co-founders, advisors, analysts, professionals, globals, passionates, worldwides, innovators, data-drivens, strategists, authentics, experts, coaches, transformers, disruptors, leads, champions, builders, advocates, ambassadors, pioneers, architects, lifelongs, change agents, believers, motivators and ideators?

4:15 - Get Sucked In By Click Bait About Pop Star I Never Heard Of
You won't believe what she looks like now!

4:30 PM - Find A Baseball Game On TV

This is better

7:30 PM - Find Another Baseball Game On TV And Eat Something Garlicky
This is even better

10:30 PM - Go To Bed
This is even betterer

3:00 AM -  Wake Up And Write The Fucking Blog Post
Get depressed because it sucks

July 05, 2017

10th Anniversary Edition


This week marks the 10th anniversary of The Ad Contrarian blog.

I can't think of a more interesting time to have been writing about the ad industry. I've had a few favorite story lines -- marketers' detachment from reality; brand babble; the devaluation of creativity; the unhealthy consolidation of the agency industry; the foolish disregard for the most valuable consumer group in history.

But the biggest ad story of this decade is undoubtedly the story of online advertising. It has gone from infancy to pimply-faced adolescence in the last decade. And like all adolescents it is annoying, stupid, and stinky.

One can't help but marvel at how our industry was presented with such an extraordinary opportunity and has managed to fuck it up it so thoroughly.

The marketing industry has hijacked the web. It has become a relentless 24-hour marketing machine. Online advertising has been an integral factor in many of today's most dispiriting realities -- the degradation of journalism, fake news, industry corruption and fraud.

In the past ten years online advertising has gone from a minor annoyance to major menace (this is the subject of a book I'm working on.) It is not simply a pesky nuisance; through the twin agencies of tracking and ad tech it has become a danger to democratic societies.

It's been a fascinating decade -- but frankly hard to watch for someone who has derived substantial pleasure and prosperity from advertising.

I don't believe much in legacies, especially in an industry that doesn't even bother to bury its dead. But if I did, I'd hope that this blog would be seen as contributing to the story of how an industry went so far off the rails so quickly.

What a stroke of luck to have been inadvertently chronicling the whole thing. I know it's unseemly to derive amusement from the decline of an industry, but I have to admit I've had a blast for ten years.

Despite the foolishness of our aristocratic "leaders," there are many wonderful people in advertising and I've been fortunate to get to know many of them. This blog has allowed me to become friends, even if just 'virtually,' with great people all over the world.

It has also permitted me to share some of my immoderate views with tens of thousands of others. No matter how wantonly we have endeavored to screwed it up, the web really is a remarkable connection device.

It is not hyperbole to say that some of the people I like best in the world I've met as a result of this blog.

Thanks for reading this thing. I hope it has been of value to you -- if not illuminating, at least thought-provoking.




June 27, 2017

Who's Gonna Guard Marcel?


Publicis ceo Arthur Sadoun made big headlines last week with his announcement that he's taking the $20 million they piss away at Cannes every year and sinking it into an artificial intelligence gimmick called Marcel.

The goal of this AI system is to connect all 80,000 of Publicis' employees for the purpose of universal access to information and collaboration. You can learn about it on this video cliché-fest.

According to Chip Register, co-CEO of Publicis.Sapient...
"In a group of 80,000 people ... how can we assemble that team and allow that team to work and collaborate virtually to bring the best ideas and values we can to a client at a moment's notice?...The use of technology enables great creative work. It enables the connectivity of people... It enables teams to work and it enables ideas to generate, be shared globally and virtually, through the use of better insight in culture and the journey of human beings."
Let's forget the "human journey" horseshit for a minute and talk about the practical use of Marcel.

We know that digital security is a cruel joke. We know that hackers have gotten into White House systems, CIA systems, and just about any system they want to hack.

What I want to know is, how is Publicis going to protect the ideas and information accessible through Marcel from every hacker and every rival agency and marketing entity on the planet?

But let's give Publicis the benefit of the doubt and stipulate that they have better cyber security than the White House. How about the internal issues?

Let's say Publicis is pitching Coca-Cola or General Motors or Unilever or any large global brand. Do they really expect us to believe that they are going to put essential brand strategy, creative work, and media ideas into a system that can be accessed by 80,000 people all over the globe?

Do they really want to tempt some intern or junior planner with Marcel access to sell critical information to a rival agency?

If they're not going to put essential information into the Marcel system, what use is it? How can it enable "ideas to generate, be shared globally and virtually" if they're not, um, shared globally and virtually?

And how about their current clients? Do they really think their clients are going to want proprietary information they give to Publicis to be within reach of 80,000 employees, any one of whom may skip to a rival agency or rival brand tomorrow?

But if they don't put proprietary info into the system, how can they possibly "assemble that team and allow that team to work and collaborate virtually to bring the best ideas and values we can to a client at a moment's notice?"

No company in its right mind puts sensitive, critical, or proprietary information into an email. The same will be true of Marcel.

One of the key attributes clients expect from an agency is mature and discrete handling of confidential information. Not an 80,000 person circle jerk.

When the dual imperatives of protecting confidential information and providing essential security dawn on Publicis, they will discover that Marcel is destined to become not much more than a massively expensive and technologically elegant next gen version of a conference call.

Update:
In an amazing timing coincidence, I posted this last night and WPP got hit with a crippling hack attack this morning.

June 22, 2017

Apple Treats The Disease. Google Treats The Symptoms.


Apple and Google both know there's a big problem. The problem is that online advertising is a shit show of unprecedented proportions.

In recent days, both Apple and Google have announced initiatives to deal with the problem. Google's solution is timid. Apple's solution is much better.

First let's define the problem. Essentially everyone who uses the web is fully fed-up with the horrifying state of online advertising. It is beyond annoying, beyond stupid, and beyond insufferable.

People have always viewed advertising as a minor annoyance. But online advertising and the imbeciles who create and propagate it are so far removed from reality that human beings are in revolt. Over 600 million web-enabled devices are currently running ad blockers.

The hidden hand behind the horror of online advertising is tracking. Tracking, and the collection of personal information, is in large part responsible for many of the worst aspects of online ads. Let's put aside for a moment the damage that tracking is doing to privacy, security, democracy, and journalism and just talk about two simple reasons why Apple's solution is much better than Google's.

- The personal data that is amassed by tracking has turned the web into a non-stop direct response ad machine. Direct response advertising (whether of the "junk mail", "800 number", or "click here" variety) has always been the ugliest and most annoying type of advertising. It is usually enabled by data bases.

- Tracking enables marketers to creepily follow us around the web and pester us everywhere we go with whatever ads their idiotic algorithms tell them we're interested in and would be delighted to see. Yes, they actually believe this horseshit.

Google's Chrome browser (the world's most popular with over 50% market share) will in the near future be loaded with a partial ad blocker that will block what Google considers the most annoying type of ads.

Google's ad blocker has been developed with a group called the CBA (Coalition for Better Ads). This is a bunch of advertisers, publishers, online media, and agencies whose stated objective is to force better online advertising. But whose hidden agenda is probably to protect tracking and surveillance marketing.

The Electronic Freedom Foundation has this to say about Google's plan...
“…While we welcome the willingness to tackle annoying ads, the CBA's criteria do not address a key reason many of us install ad blockers: to protect ourselves against the non-consensual tracking and surveillance that permeates the advertising ecosystem operated by the members of the CBA.”
I agree with the EFF. Any effort to fix the awfulness of online advertising is laudable, even if it ain't perfect and even if it is somewhat cynical.

But Apple's idea is much better. Apple's Safari browser will soon employ "Intelligent Tracking Prevention." This will keep marketers from tracking us across sites. Don Marti sums up the benefit of Safari's solution succinctly:

  • Nifty machine learning technology is coming in on the user’s side.
  • “Legitimate” uses do not include cross-site tracking.
  • Safari’s protection is automatic and client-side, so no blocklist politics.
The key difference in the way Apple and Google approach the problem can be found in the nature of the companies. Apple makes very little money from online advertising and has a self-interest in protecting their users' experiences.

Google, on the other hand, makes virtually all of its money from advertising and has a self-interest in protecting tracking and surveillance marketing. The key thing to remember is that most of the major players in online advertising have a big stake in surveillance marketing. They will fight like hell to protect tracking.

Google have proven to be geniuses at subtle misdirection. Their whole search engine business is founded on the idea of misdirection -- create a paid search result that seems to a consumer to be close enough to a natural search result to be believable. This is the essence of their business.

It is not surprising that Google's "Better Ads" solution would look like it's treating the disease while actually only treating symptoms.

Always keep in mind that Google, Facebook, the IAB, the ANA, and the 4A's will always fight to retain tracking. Why? They are now in the surveillance business. Their business is collecting, selling, and exploiting the details of our personal lives and our personal behavior.


June 13, 2017

Advertising And The Old-Guy Syndrome


The Golden State Warriors have been the best team in basketball for the past 3 years.

Two years ago they won the NBA championship. Last year they had the best win-loss record in the history of the league but lost the championship in the final game (their best player, Steph Curry, had 3 injuries; their center, Andrew Bogut, was hurt and not able to play; and their heartbeat, Draymond Green, was suspended for a critical game.) This year they had the best record in the league and last night they won the Championship again.

As a result, there are people who are proclaiming them one of the best basketball teams of all time.

But there are also a bunch of old players from years back -- some of them great, some of them mediocre -- who are mouthing-off saying their teams could have beaten the Warriors. They claim the Warriors are not really that good because the league is weaker, or the players aren't as talented, or the game isn't as competitive as it was in the old days.

This is a familiar refrain among old athletes. They always think that players or teams were better "back in the day" and that today's players don't match up. Of course, it's all nonsense. But it doesn't stop the old guys from blowing hot air.

Recently the coach of the Warriors, Steve Kerr, who was on 5 championship teams himself when he was a player, was asked to comment on the assertions of the old guy critics. His sardonic take down was brilliant.
"They're all right. They would all kill us. The game gets worse as time goes on. Players are less talented than they used to be. The guys in the '50s would've destroyed everybody. It's weird how human evolution goes reverse in sports. Players get weaker, smaller, less skilled. I don't know. I can't explain it."
Mr. Kerr's ridicule of the "old-guy syndrome" is easily supported empirically. Take a look at the results of Olympic Games over the years -- where the performances are quantified -- and it's clear that athletes have better training, better nutrition, and better technique as time goes on. The result is that with regularity old records are broken and new records are set. It's obvious that each Olympics contains some athletes who are the best ever at their sport.

Here’s where advertising comes in. Unlike sports, it's hard to make a quantifiable case that creativity increases with time. You'd have to be a remarkably good debater to convince sensible people that Warhol was a better artist than da Vinci. Or that Taylor Swift is more musically gifted than Gershwin.

In creative matters, it's usually more judicious to assume an evolution in tastes than an arrow of progress.

In the ad business we have our own "old-guy syndrome." Many believe that "back in the day" (when they were in the ad business) it was a "golden age." As an old guy myself, I don't have much patience for "golden age" baloney. I believe that creative people today are just as talented as ever.

And yet, it is widely believed that advertising itself isn't as creative as it once was. I do a lot of traveling around the world and I hear this all the time.

It doesn't seem to be just the whining of old advertising guys (by the way, I'm not being sexist here. It's almost always the guys who do the whining and for a long time the ad business was overwhelmingly a boys' club.) It seems to be a widely held belief by non-advertising people, too. So what's going on?

I have a few theories about this. First let's start with the positive stuff.

For one thing, the technology of creativity today is stunning. Special effects we take for granted in spots today would have been astounding 15 years ago

Next, delivery systems are amazing. "TV everywhere" delivered mainly through connected digital devices have made the web way more interesting and has given web-delivered materials far more avenues for creativity.

The same is true of "printed materials." Digital technology has made out-of-home media a lot more noticeable and impactful.

But while the technological aspects of advertising today can be stunning, is technology really what we're talking about when we talk about advertising creativity, or is it ideas? I think there's little doubt that it's the latter.

So why should it be that with so many new media types, so much technological brilliance and so many talented creative people, we're producing advertising that is widely believed to be inferior to past eras?

I have a few hypotheses. First is the ubiquity of online display advertising. It is not just the most annoying type of advertising we see, it is also the most inescapable. It leaves the false impression that advertising as a whole is relentlessly unimaginative.

Next is the nature of contemporary ad agencies. I guess there is no inexorable relationship between the size of agencies and the absence of quality. On the other hand, we have Jay Chiat who famously said, "We want to see how big we can get before we get bad."

Holding company culture, as it currently exists, might prove Jay right. I think there are a lot of creative people who are not comfortable sitting at what Rich Siegel calls "the long table of mediocrity." As a result, they are taking their talents to other industries.

Next is short-termism. Dashboards that show us instantaneous results are very addictive. But the kind of advertising that produces instantaneous results -- the direct response type -- has never been the kind of advertising people think of as creative. In fact, it has traditionally been thought of as among the least creative varieties.

The stature of highly talented creative people has been diminished. Sir Martin Sorrell is reported to have said the medium is more important than the message.

Lastly, we have created a litany of false advertising goals with horrifyingly clichéd and fuzzy definitions like "engagement, conversations, journeys, and storytelling." Highly creative people are skeptical of dreadful parameters like these and are resistant to working within them. While agency leaders can easily find plenty of compliant creatives to buy into this nonsense, it is probable that many of our most talented are not happy with this oppressively vapid terrain.

This could go two ways. First, and most likely, the big guys win. The focus on the false goals will continue and over time many of our best creatives will slowly ride off into the sunset.

The other possibility is that good creative people will take to the streets and try to explain to the brand masters that the true leverage in the advertising business resides in the power of exceptional ideas. It remains to be seen which way the agency business goes.

The problem is, while it would be comforting and convenient to attribute widespread dissatisfaction about the state of advertising to "old-guy syndrome," it may be a little more serious than that.

And Speaking Of Old Guys...
...last week Jack Trout died. Trout invented the concept of "positioning" which has become a basic principle of marketing. Several years ago I had the pleasure of spending a pleasant afternoon with Jack at his home in Connecticut. He was a gracious host and displayed none of the ego one sometimes encounters from people who have been so influential in our business.  RIP, Jack Trout.

And Speaking Of Ego...
...you have to marvel at the stunning self-regard that allows this guy to modestly put himself in the same bucket as Mark Zuckerberg and Mark Cuban.

June 06, 2017

Technology, Progress, And Irresponsible Stupidity


The world does not move in straight lines. We expect things to go one way, but they unexpectedly go another.

In 2000, when the Prius was introduced, most commentators saw a big future for hybrid vehicles.

In 2009, a study by JPMorgan confidently asserted "20% of all vehicles sold in U.S. to be hybrids by 2020."

In 2010, Consumer Reports said "39 percent are considering buying a hybrid or plug-in for their next car."

And yet, as of April 2016, hybrid cars represented less than 2% of car sales in the US. Their share of market has dropped by 50% since 2013. A car dealer I know told me "we can't give 'em away."

If you think the reason for this is the popularity of electric vehicles, think again. Electric vehicles represent less than 1% of car sales in the US.

In the early 1990's the Soviet Union collapsed. We thought "liberal democracy" had become triumphant and would be the model for world governance. Today "liberal democracy" is facing challenges we never imagined.

The point is this. We rarely know what we think we know.

Technologically we are very quickly entering terra incognita. The technological breakthroughs of the past two decades have been pretty mind-blowing. But the upcoming era of artificial intelligence and machine learning will make them seem timid.

Technology is neutral. It is neither good nor bad. It all depends on how we use it. Nuclear energy was an amazing technological achievement, but nuclear weapons are nothing but a danger. As Stephen Fry brilliantly points out in this piece, Gutenberg's printing press - a technological marvel of its day -  could produce Macbeth. But it could also produce Mein Kampf.

So far, our ability to manage advertising and marketing technology has not been encouraging. I'm referring, of course, to ad tech and tracking. While technology makes the tracking of individuals possible, the absence of reasonable managing principles for this technology has created nightmares for consumers over their security and privacy.

I recently took part in a debate about this issue. My partner and I were opposed to the use of tracking-based ad tech.

One of the positions our opponents in the debate took was that if we opposed ad tech we were standing in the way of progress. This was a clever but profoundly misguided argument.

Technology is not synonymous with progress. Our ability to manage technology wisely determines if technology is progress or not. Even a cursory knowledge of history teaches that we are at least as capable of turning technology to the bad as to the good.

The idea that all types of technology constitute "progress" is dangerously shallow. The idea that opposing malevolent uses of technology impedes "progress" is irresponsibly stupid.

May 30, 2017

Ad Blocking Is Not The Best Answer


Here in the War Room at The Ad Contrarian Worldwide Headquarters, we are uncomfortable with the idea of ad blockers. As unrepentant ad people, we don't like the idea. And yet, we use ad blockers.

According to PageFair there are now over 600 million connected devices in the world sporting ad blockers. In the US, it is estimated that about 25% of desktop computers are now using ad blockers.

And according to published reports, Google is thinking about adding an ad blocking option to its Chrome browser, which is the most used browser in the world.

For now, the most popular defense against obnoxious online advertising is ad blocking. But ad blocking is a blunt instrument that has the potential to do serious damage to aspects of the web that we all enjoy.

Like it or not, advertising funds just about everything on the web we like. Without advertising, no YouTube, no Facebook...

You'd be stuck with nothing but The Ad Contrarian.

It would be nice to believe that people would be willing to pay for things they enjoy online but most experiments in “paywall” web publishing have been a failure.

So the question becomes, how can we encourage an acceptable version of online advertising that will allow us to enjoy the things we like about the web without the insufferable annoyance of the current online ad model?

The answer is not that complicated. The invisible hand that powers just about everything we hate about online advertising is tracking. Get rid of tracking and online advertising would instantly become a lot less horrible.

There is no reason why online advertising can't be bought and sold on a similar basis to offline advertising -- instead of on the current tracking/ad tech model.

Online advertisers would then not be able to stalk us every where we went on the web; fake news would be less likely to draw "programmatically" delivered advertising money; quality publishers would have a better chance at survival; the economic incentive for click bait would diminish, and a great many other undesirable aspects of web world would be greatly minimized.

We could enjoy what we like about the web without having to resort to the heavy hand of ad blockers.

Along those lines...
... I participated a few weeks ago in a debate about ad tech at the World Federation of Advertisers conference in Toronto. You can see my opening argument here.




May 23, 2017

Global Brand Equals Global Bland


If you wonder why so many big brands are obsessed with media, the answer is simple. It's the only thing they have left to argue about.

Their determination to demonstrate "globularity" has had an unintended consequence -- the trivialization of strategy and creativity.

Globularity leads marketers to bland, non-specific strategies and bland, non-specific advertising.

It's really quite simple. The grander the "brand purpose," the less specific the strategy. The less specific the strategy, the blander the advertising.

My favorite example of the power of specificity was Apple's introduction of the iPod. They didn't give it the vanilla, global "World Class MP3 Player" treatment. They said "1,000 Songs In Your Pocket." They were specific. They talked about the virtues of the product, not woolly melodramatic horseshit

My direction to the creative teams who worked for me was always the same - be specific. Today the objective is to ignore the specific and "ladder up" the benefit.

In the idiotic world of "laddering-up," every piece of chewing gum, every vacuum cleaner bag, and every can of sugar water is purported to "make life better and the world a better place."

Specificity has died because it's too sales-y. It doesn't have sufficient virtue or globularity.

It seems that every big brand is instituting its own flavor of the same strategy:
"We're inclusive and committed. Our products are for every type of person in the whole darn global world and our awesome universal values prove it."
Why has the ad industry given up on specificity in favor of globularity? First, it flatters the self-absorbed client. She loves to hear wearisome bullshit about how her yogurt is changing the world.

Second, it's so much easier. By insisting on the default strategy of universality - including every type of person and every cultural stereotype - they find themselves creating not the best possible advertising but the least objectionable advertising. And selling the least objectionable advertising to their corporate overseers is a much easier task.

Another consequence of this fuzzy thinking is that it leads marketers to focus on silly fantasies like "millennialism" -- huge swaths of people who are presumed to have a uniform "global" identity.

Then, instead of doing the hard work of differentiating the product, they just hold up a mirror and try to tell us who we are and how they are just like us.

This type of spineless, watery exercise in tedious whacking-off usually leaves very little of a strategic or creative nature to argue over. Just show every kind of person engaged in every kind of virtuous activity. And the result is that the conversation quickly turns to something everyone can have a fine old time arguing about - media choices.

It's no wonder "global" brands are obsessed with media. It's the only thing left to them. When it comes to strategy or creative, the only issue is which key to sing "We Are The World" in.

May 15, 2017

Live TV Declines Bigly For 3rd Month


Here at The Ad Contrarian Worldwide Headquarters, we try to be fact-driven rather than ideology-driven. And it's time to say that the recent declines in live TV viewing are a becoming a worry.

For years we have argued against the ignorant hysterics who said TV was dead. While TV remains by far the most popular form of video viewing and by far the most popular entertainment medium, the past three months have not been pretty.

Here are some data from the Pivotal Research Group...
  • In April, total daily TV use was down 5.3% for adults and 2.1% for households versus 2016.
  • Among adults 18-49 day time and prime time viewing of traditional TV programming fell by double digits for the third month in a row.
  • A bright spot for video in general was internet delivered viewing which rose by more than 50% versus 2016, but which is mainly not advertising supported.
As Pivotal suggests, the recent declines are likely to invigorate "efforts to explore and encourage the use of alternative media vehicles" by marketers. 

One of the problems for TV is that for decades they have used "time spent" with the medium as a proxy for the effectiveness of the medium. But these are two different things.

Time spent with a medium may be an interesting sociological point, but it is not a measure of advertising effectiveness. Here in The Ad Contrarian Executive Board Room, we spend a lot of time with vodka bottles. That doesn't make them a good vehicle for advertising.

There is little doubt in our minds that overall TV remains the most effective form of advertising. Or as Pivotal says, "television is the worst form of advertising except all those others..."

But if the declines in viewing time keep increasing, TV is going to have a tough time convincing advertisers that the "time spent" narrative they touted for years wasn't really important.

May 10, 2017

Evolutionary Change In Advertising


If you are a young person working in marketing or advertising, let's say you're 28, you probably think the world of advertising is changing at warp speed.

You would say that every day new technological breakthroughs in communication and media are changing how the advertising and marketing industry reaches and influences people.

You would point to smart phones and say that in just the past decade smart phone usage has soared and is now the second most popular electronic device we spend time with. This is something that didn't even exist 10 years ago. You would point to Facebook and say that here we have something that barely existed 10 years ago but is now the biggest media entity on the planet.

And you would be right to say those things.

If you were an old fuck like me, however, you would say that advertising and marketing are evolving  more slowly than you think. You would point to the fact that only about 8% of retail activity happens online, and that people still buy an overwhelming amount of their stuff in stores, and still spend more time watching television than all other leisure activities combined.

And you'd be right about that, too.

In biology, it has been suggested that evolution runs more quickly on short time scales, and more slowly on long time scales. This isn't just a cute sentence, it seems to be an actual scientific fact.

Think about stock markets. If you follow the markets all day you are witnessing wild swings minute-by-minute. It looks like ever-changing chaos. But if you check them once a month, they look pretty much this month like they did last month.

Yes, every few years there may be a bust or a boom that puts the punctuation in "punctuated equilibrium." But looked at from a distance, the changes seem to have a surprising smoothness.

As time scales expand, there is a fluidity to change that is not evident in the turmoil of the hour-by-hour mayhem.

This can be seen in trendy marketing obsessions that seem terribly consequential over short periods but tend to flatten out as time passes and perspective advances.

It's good to remember this when we start popping off about something being dead, and something else being the future.

May 02, 2017

The World's Most Expensive Clown Show


This week The Worldwide Bullshit Insider Summit is being held here at the Ketel One Conference Center on the campus of The Ad Contrarian Global Headquarters.

The question being hotly debated is this: Who’s more full of shit? The marketing honchos who are pretending they just discovered there’s no transparency in online media, or the agency hustlers who are pretending they’re shocked that ads running in the bowels of the web are creating brand safety issues?

Let’s examine the evidence.

First, the marketers. They have insisted for years on getting the lowest possible online CPMs — which everyone with a functioning cortex knows means buying a heavy dose of the cheapest crap you can find, aka “non-human traffic,” aka “bots,” aka standing in the executive wash room flushing million dollar bills down the toilet (by the way, do they have million dollar bills? If so, can I have one? Please?)

Did it bother them? Hell no! They had amazing KPIs, aka "Kockamamie Performance Indicators," that they could wave in front of their clueless bosses and prove they were getting tremendous value from the bots, sourced traffic, and non-viewable ads they were buying.

But then trouble arose. The ANA "transparency" massacre became public and their bosses started asking questions. Suddenly they were transformed into helpless victims who were outraged! at the crookedness around them. Oh my god, the poor babies!

So they played the outrage card and hung onto their jobs for another three months (by the way, three months is known around here as a "CMO Year.")

But now that the storm has passed, the aggrieved marketers have taken the offensive and have changed the subject (always a good survival strategy!) to "brand safety."

Which brings us to the agency sharpies. They’ve built careers telling half-truths about online advertising to their goober clients and giggling all the way to the bank.

They've been "programmatically" spreading their clients’ money all over the sleaziest corners of the web in order to impress them with their awesome CPMs, and winking and nodding when ad network hustlers tell them the traffic is 100% clean and pure.

Now, suddenly, they have found out that - oh my god! - our clients’ ads have been running in naughty places. We’re shocked! We demand to see the manager!

I've seen some hilariously lousy performances in my time, but if they gave Oscars for duplicity these guys would have to build a trophy room.

So let's sum up: We have CMOs pretending they just discovered that online advertising is not transparent. And agency bigwigs pretending they're shocked that they've been buying disreputable crap.

It's a full-tilt, 3-ring festival of comedy horseshit.

And the outcome? The marketers issue some somber press releases about how they're going to clean up this mess and the agencies do the bobblehead dance while continuing to ride the grotesque ad tech gravy train.

But best of all, I get to continue writing about the world's most hilarious and expensive clown show. Everybody wins!

April 26, 2017

Making Marketers Uncomfortable


When I am finished speaking at a conference or advertising event people often ask me how I can be so sure I'm right and other people people are wrong.

The answer is, I'm not.

I spent 41 years in the agency business. I worked on some very big brands including McDonald's, Toyota, Bank of America, AT&T and others. And I had a pretty successful career and did some reasonably successful work.

But that doesn't make me sure of anything. One thing I learned about advertising is that when you're trying to anticipate human behavior -- which is what marketers and advertisers do -- there are no sure things. All there are are likelihoods and probabilities.

This is why I am highly skeptical about what I hear and read from advertising and marketing experts these days. Particularly those of the digital stripe.

They tend to be awfully sure of themselves and very dismissive of those who disagree with them. They also tend to have a lot more opinions than experience.

It is certainly possible that they are brighter than I am and have more insight into consumer behavior. But, to be honest here, I really don't think so.

I've been asked to do a lot of interviews lately (it probably has something to do with the shit-storm over online advertising that the last six months has produced and my sudden promotion from idiot to genius.) Sooner or later, the interviewer usually gets around to this question: Why do you write your blog?

It's a good question for someone who's been out of the agency business for four years and is supposed to be quietly retired and planting tulips or something.

And as I think about it, it becomes pretty clear why I continue to do this. I believe we marketers  think we know a lot of things that we don't really know. I think we do a lot of faking. I know I certainly did, and I don't think the average marketing person is that much smarter than me.

I think it's important that we have more humility and understand that there's a lot about human economic behavior that we don't understand. I like to point that out. I like to find the contradictions and expose the weak points and the phonies.

I see my job as making marketers uncomfortable.  It doesn't make me popular, but I hope it heartens some people who feel the same way I do.

April 20, 2017

TV To Die Soon. Again.


Okay, this time they really mean it. TV is about to die.

Don't believe me? It's right here in Ad Age in black and white, another fucking article entitled "TV May Actually Die Soon." Can you believe this?

I'm just wondering how many Ad Age stories there have been over the past 15 years about TV dying?

Will  they ever figure out that regardless of what the marketing and media geniuses have to say, people like television. How fucking difficult is that to understand?

As we all know, online viewing of video is "killing" traditional TV. "Nobody" watches live TV anymore. Everybody is watching video online.

That's what we've all learned from going to conferences and listening to media, marketing and digital geniuses speak. It's what we read in the trades and in the press every day.

Only problem is, it's all bullshit.

A new study released by comScore shows that of households with both traditional TV and OTT (video delivered over the internet) for every hour spent with online video people spend about 5 1/2 hours with traditional TV.

Even the top 20% of online video users spend twice as much time with traditional TV.

The bottom 50% of online video streamers, watch 98% of their video on traditional TV.

Despite the fact that Netflix has almost as many subscribers as all cable TV companies combined, and more households have Netflix than a DVR, comScore says,  
"Traditional rules the roost in terms of time spent, as OTT continues to act more as supplemental viewing..."
Then there's this. A report by Pivotal Research Group last week said,  
"...despite the significant growth in access to SVOD (Subscription Video On Demand, e.g., Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu) services over the past few years, consumption of traditional TV programming has not been affected to the degree that many might expect...any expectations around the 'death of TV' because of SVOD services are likely overstated."
Meanwhile, viewership of national news programming is surging. Once again, according to Pivotal,
"YTD viewing of all news-related programming on national media properties is now +12%."
 Last week it was up 23%.

As I speculated last year, what's likely to happen is that the internet media companies who don't call themselves media companies (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple) who have all the money in the world, are likely over time to buy up TV properties. This is starting to raise its head in the recent Amazon-NFL $50 million football deal.

I'm afraid we're all going to be dead long before TV is.


April 17, 2017

Pokémon Went


If you've ever doubted that most marketers are clueless, fad-jumping nitwits who drool at any shiny object, I have two words for you -- Pokémon Go.

A reminder, this was just a few months ago...

 _____
 _
 ______

 ______

 ______
 
 ______

 ______


 ______

 

Every stupid fucking fad that comes along is now "disruptive," "game-changing," and "the future of marketing." What a clown show the marketing industry has become.

April 12, 2017

Agency Phonies Piling On


The Great Pepsi Bloodbath of last week had one salutary effect -- it helped divert our attention from the YouTube "brand safety" scandal.

We could all pretend how shocked we were at Pepsi's stupidity instead of pretending how shocked we were at adtech sleaziness.

Six weeks ago, if you had said that online advertising was a corrupt and dangerous pile of shit, all the  experts would have looked at you like you had three heads and called you an ignorant dinosaur (believe me, I know.)

Today, these same geniuses are suddenly shocked and outraged by the problems of adtech and are calling for big changes. All it took were a few headlines and promptly everyone who had been working the online ad hustle for the past 10 years was shocked...shocked, I tell you.

As Andy Ball said in Ad Age recently...
"The same folks that took their clients off-roading into digital land in the first place -- initially bouncing through the well-documented shortcomings of display, and now crashing into the emergent problems with programmatic buying....Suddenly, agencies want answers from publishers."
It is painful to listen to the people who have been making excuses and cashing checks for years now bemoaning the terrible state of the industry and how we've all been victimized by the terrible people at YouTube.

Along with these bozos are the outraged CMOs who have been asleep at the wheel and had to wait for the news media to tell them what they should have known years ago.

What a load of crap.

Online advertising has not changed in the past 6 weeks. The corruption, fraud, deceit, absence of responsibility and accountability that have plagued it for years did not suddenly appear in February.

I don't know what's worse, listening to nitwits tell us how amazing online advertising is or listening to their sudden squeals of disapproval.

You have to laugh as the phonies who have been selling their clients delusional horseshit about online advertising for over a decade are suddenly demanding to see the manager. 

April 07, 2017

Pepsi Selling Its Soul


In light of the cacophony of yakking about this week's Pepsi debacle, I thought it would be a good idea to remind everyone that Pepsi cluelessness is nothing new.  Here is a piece I wrote back in 2013 that did a pretty good job of  presaging the hijinks of the past week. Pepsi stupidity is something you can always count on...

January 10, 2013

One of the great things about the marketing world is that if things get really bad, if everything is caving in around you, if your whole world is crumbling and you desperately need a laugh, you can always Google "Pepsi marketing" and have yourself a hearty chuckle.

Just spend a few minutes rooting around in their amazing alternate universe and you're sure to find a treasure trove of fun, guaranteed to put a smile on your face.

Here at Ad Contrarian Labs, we have been chronicling the wonderfully entertaining, yet seriously preposterous, goings-on at Pepsi for years. And every time we think it can't get any more silly, we are proven wrong.

As we predicted years ago...

"PepsiCo's soda business is in the midst of an epic, historic collapse."
...said Business Insider a few weeks ago. They went on to report...
"In Q3 2012, volume at its American division declined 3%, driven by a 4% decline in North America. There was a 7% revenue decline to $5.5 billion. In March 2011, Pepsi was humbled as Diet Coke became the nation's No.2 favorite drink behind Coke, and Pepsi slipped to No.3. Diet Pepsi is only the 7th most-drunk soda in the U.S."
Gosh. Whodathunkit?

But don't worry. In an article that appeared recently, they seem to have a whole new vocabulary of knucklehead double-talk (Pepsi leads the league in that category) that is sure to save them. This comes from the Pepsi Global Beverage Group Foresight Director. Yes, they actually have someone with that title. The more dreadful their business gets, the more ridiculously pompous their titles get.

I wonder how the Global Beverage Group Foresight Director gets along with the President-Global Enjoyment and the Global Chief Marketing Officer-Hydration. I'm starting to believe the most creative employee in the company is the HR person who comes up with these breathtaking titles.

As an aside, I think I have a good strategy for bringing Pepsi's beverage business back to life. Fire all the overfed worldwide globalizers and hire an Ad Manager who'll let the agency make some decent fucking ads.

But I digress...

The Global Beverage Group Foresight Director thinks he has the solution to Pepsi's problems. He says...
"There's a growing realisation that ... innovation has to come out of the brand soul."
Apparently, in the ever more ludicrous lexicon of brand babble, brands no longer have "DNA", now they have "soul."

It seems that innovation has not been coming out of Pepsi's "brand soul." It's been coming out of the elevator, or the janitor's closet or something. Now they are searching for the brand's soul and -- pop -- out will come the innovations. Sounds like fun.

I wonder how much some brilliant branding consultant is going to charge them to find the brand's soul? Personally, I wouldn't do it for less than 2 million.

The Foreskin Foresight Director also thinks it's important
"...that people running a brand share a "sense of being" with its buyers"
As a sometime Pepsi buyer, it is very clear to me that the people running the brand and I do not share a sense of being. I'm not even sure I have a sense of being anymore. I think I lost it. Maybe Pepsi can give it back to me. Sometimes at about 3 a.m. I have a sense of peeing. But I don't think that's what they mean.

The Foreplay Foresight Director wants the people who run the brand and me to...  
"... form "one big force" sharing the same goal..."
Gosh, imagine if I shared a goal with a soda brand team. What an awesome life it would be. We'd be "one big force."

The Pepsi brand team and little ol' me. My friend, it's a carbonated dream come true.

April 05, 2017

Pepsi Takes Clueless To Next Level


A few weeks ago, the executive committee here at The Ad Contrarian Global Center for Horseshit Detection coined a term - virtue hustling. We defined it as the practice by marketers of attempting to convince us barbarians of how wise and virtuous they are.

You see, these corporations are full of love for all of global humanity and treat us all with respect and reverence. Especially in their advertising. Especially if you're young and beautiful.

Pepsi, who you can always count on to jump with both feet into whatever the idiotic marketing or cultural obsession of the week is, has taken this unpleasant new gimmick to its logical absurdity.

If you haven't seen this thing yet, you're in for a treat. It is, perhaps, the worst piece of inauthentic crap I've seen in a long time. Try not to barf.


Our story so far...

...a zillionaire supermodel, responding to an entreaty by an Asian musician, fosters world peace and general elation among cheerful and beautiful young protestors of every sex and color by giving a Pepsi to a cute police officer while a tortured-artist-Muslim-photographer-woman finally gets her big shot.

However, when you decode the spot you get a whole different story -- all you people of color can prance about all you like but it takes a beautiful white girl to really make something happen.

This is as real as it gets in that special universe that marketers live in and that Pepsi marketing in particular  has come to symbolize.

The wonderful thing about this whole exercise in crass stupidity is that it was created by Pepsi's in-house content studio. According to Digiday, Pepsi "hopes (it) will let marketers, not agencies, sit in the creative driver’s seat." Yeah, that's the ticket. Let the waiters do the cooking!

How completely insanely clueless do you have to be to create a "protest march" in which everyone is beautiful, everyone is under 25,  and no one is angry? And someone is holding a sign saying "Join the conversation." Really? Join the fucking conversation?

Since I wrote this post it has been announced that Pepsi has pulled this "global" monstrosity.

You may now feel free to un-join the conversation.

April 04, 2017

Smart Phones Not Killing TV


"A new study of media and attention by Nielsen Co. confirms what has now become conventional wisdom: Smartphones are winning and traditional television is losing..." Fortune, 2015
Not exactly.

Nielsen's Total Audience Report for the 4th quarter of 2016 just arrived and it has some interesting stuff in it. First have a  look at this chart.

A quick glance shows that the quickly expanding amount of time we are spending with our smart phones (light orange) does not seem to be impacting the amount of time we are spending with broadcast media.

While time spent with Smart Phones has more than doubled in 2 years, time spent with TV, DVR's and Radio is remarkably stable. (You'd never know it if you read horseshit like this 2 years ago.)

Observation tells us that a lot of time spent on cell phones is done during commutes, in restaurants, or standing around waiting for the fat guy to finish up in the men's room. It is not replacing other media occasions, it is inventing new ones.

Smart phones seem to be a last choice for viewing video. Here's a chart I put together from Nielsen's figures illustrating how people watched video last quarter.

The type of viewing that has been growing most quickly, and is probably responsible for the small decline in live TV viewing, is the use of "multi-media" devices such as Roku, TiVo, and Apple TV.  Time spent with these devices has more than doubled in two years, but according to Nielsen's numbers, still constitute only about 5% of video viewing.

Viewing of live TV still dwarfs all other types of video consumption combined.

April 03, 2017

Opening Day, 2017


Today is Opening Day for most of the baseball world. Here is my customary Opening Day post.

The world is a complete fucking mess. Somewhere, an asteroid is heading toward Earth. Web pornography is warping the minds of our children. Grown men and women are relentlessly tweeting each other. Yes, my friend, the end is near.

But who gives a damn?

It's Opening Day. I'm going to have a hot dog and a beer. I'm going to sit in the sunshine till the back of my neck is red and raw and my ass stings like a shot of tequila on a bad patch of strep throat.

What the hell, I'm having two hot dogs.

Once a year, every aspect of life should have an Opening Day. Every business should have one. Every friendship should have one. Every family should have one.

A day when everything starts over. When all of last year's successes and failures go into the record book, no longer a matter of life and death, just a matter of history. A day when the slate is clean and the possibilities are unlimited. A day when you call in sick-and-tired; when you leave the iPhone in the glove compartment; when you go somewhere where the grass is perfect and the people are unaccountably cheerful.

It's Opening Day. Let's play some ball.

March 27, 2017

Online Advertising Is Corrupt At Its Core


Let's forget for a minute about the growing Google scandal.

Let's forget the kickback scandal unearthed by the ANA.

Instead, let's go back to first principles and focus on the nature of online advertising, and why - at its core - it has become a corrupt and dangerous thing.

It all started with a big fantasy. The fantasy was this -- people would want to interact with online advertising.

We were told that online advertising would be far more effective than traditional advertising because it would be interactive. This fantasy lived for a few years until reliable data arrived and it became clear that consumers had virtually no interest in interacting with online advertising. In fact, click rates (the only possible way to interact with online advertising) were so low, platforms like Facebook refused to divulge them.

There are two ways online publishers make money - traffic and clicks. In light of the indifference consumers were demonstrating toward display advertising, publishers needed to find a way to generate traffic and/or clicks to attract advertisers and make money.

A crisis was averted when they hit on a solution: Disguise advertising as something else.

When you see a TV commercial, a billboard or a magazine ad, there is no question what it is. It is an attempt to sell you something. These ads may be annoying, stupid, or tiresome but there is no doubt about the nature of what they are or what their motives are. They are ads and they want to sell you something.

Online advertising is different. It has become devious, non-transparent, and unscrupulous. It is intentionally confusing and its motives are often unclear. It does everything possible to hide its real intent.

Yahoo is in the top 5 websites in the U.S. by visitor count. Here is a a screen grab from this morning's (as I write this) front page news feed.


Let's ignore for a second the unspeakable crap that Yahoo considers front page news. One of the leading stories on this front page is not a news story at all. It is an ad disguised as a news story (it's the Stephen Hawking "story.")

Yahoo also deceives us about the security of our personal information. According to Yahoo...

“...we have a deep understanding of the threats facing our users and continuously strive to stay ahead of these threats to keep our users and our platforms secure...”

But according to The New York Times, in 2014 Yahoo's chief of security recommended some changes that would make their platform a lot more secure by employing "end-to-end" encryption.

This initiative was thwarted by the person who runs their email and messaging services because "...it would have hurt Yahoo’s ability to index and search message data..." That means simply this -- they wouldn't be able to read our email and target us with advertising accordingly.

The result? Last year Yahoo announced that half a billion accounts had been hacked.

Google earns its money by misdirection. When you search for "Gloves" as I did here, you get an ad disguised as a search result.

Unless you happen to notice the word "sponsored" in the upper right corner, and happen to know that by "sponsored" Google actually means "this is an ad" you would believe you're getting a search result.

Google has made a minimal effort to identify ads (as is required by regulation) including a little yellow "ad" badge on most paid ads. However, the overall look and feel of the ads is so similar to search results that half the people can't distinguish between a paid ad and a legitimate search result. There is only one possible explanation for this - Google is intentionally blurring the lines.

This is not the only way Google strives to deceive. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Federal Trade Commission has reported "... Google Inc. manipulated search results to favor its own services over rivals’, even when they weren’t most relevant for users...the FTC’s bureau of competition found evidence that Google boosted its own services for shopping, travel and local businesses by altering its ranking criteria and “scraping” content from other sites. It also deliberately demoted rivals."

The Wall Street Journal also recently reported that "ads for products sold by Google and its sister companies appeared in the most prominent spot in 91% of 25,000 recent searches related to such items."
The Journal says, "The results show how Google uses its dominant search engine to boost other parts of its business and give it an edge over competitors....After the Journal shared the analysis with Google on Dec. 15, many of the ads disappeared... Google declined to comment on the disparity." I bet they did.

Facebook uses the names of its users to create phony testimonial ads which falsely imply that your friends and family are endorsing the brands in question. This practice amounts to hijacking user identities and disguising them as product endorsements. The ad below appeared in my Facebook feed today.


I have contacted both Nathan Krinsky and Susan Tillem, the people referenced in the ad, and have confirmed that neither of them knew they were being used in this way.

When Mr. Krinsky was questioned about this his response was, "how did they get my name?" He said he had no awareness of their using his name, he did not give permission nor did he "like" the advertiser.

Actually, he did give permission but didn't know it. The permission for them to engage in this deceptive practice is buried deep in the agreement he signed when he opened a Facebook account.

There is only one explanation for this -- Facebook is intentionally exploiting a legal loophole to deceive us into thinking our friends are endorsing products which they are not endorsing.

Many of the ads in my current Facebook feed are identified as "suggested posts." I wonder what language it is in which "suggested post" means "ad?" As usual, they are doing their best to confuse what is an ad and what is not.

Social Media is a gross abuser of reasonable advertising standards. The most dangerous outcome of this has been the perversion of the news industry.

First is fake news. The ability of fake news to make money for its creators is enabled by adtech (the automated buying and selling of advertising space.)  In very simple terms, a fake news story runs on a social media platform, attracts traffic and clicks, which signals programmatic (automated) systems to buy advertising on the site. Below is an egregious example of a "successful" fake news story.


A second corruption of journalism is the ascendancy of clickbait. Since online publishers only make money from clicks and traffic, the use of clickbait tactics to attract traffic has become more economically rewarding than good journalism.

In the current model, good journalism can actually have a negative economic effect. The valuable people you attract through good journalism are tracked and re-targeted to at a lower cost site. Or your story is hijacked, aggregated and republished somewhere else. You'll never believe what happens next!

Third is the development and acceptance of "native advertising" as a legitimate form of journalistic activity. Despite its euphemistically lovely name, native advertising is nothing but advertising disguised as news.

Legitimate news organizations, desperate to make money at all costs, have been seduced into  producing and running thinly disguised advertising pieces masquerading as news. The rot has gotten so deep that some once-reputable news organizations have actually set up studios for the creation of this crap, and are going so far as to oversee its wide dissemination on social media channels on behalf of its clients.

It's hard to overestimate the damage that online advertising has had on the credibility of our news media. The fact that we have a populace that no longer knows what to believe from a media industry they once trusted, is not an accident.

Advertising and marketing people are generally good, hard-working people with worthwhile motives. We want to help our clients and we don't want to damage people or society. But we have been sleepwalking on a slippery slope of deviousness and deceit that has been advanced by a tech culture which has embraced - let's not kid ourselves - an ethos of malleable ethics.

There is decay, corruption and deceit now sitting at the heart of online advertising.