February 28, 2005
The right to better advertisements
UPDATE (March 14, 2005): Thanks to AdRants for highlighting Weblogs, Inc.'s new advertising feedback mechanism, focus-ads.Original post
I've been thinking about ugly advertising quite a bit lately. I mean, who doesn't right? I know most of us just sit around thinking about advertising. Anyway. Advertising Age ran a couple of articles, today, that motivated me to finish this one. It's one I've been pondering for awhile, but I just haven't had the time to finish. Now, I feel the need to do so...
In my opinion, it's not censorship to deny companies the ability to run ugly ads, anymore than it's restricting freedom when you deny someone the ability to hit someone else. Because, when it comes right down to it, that's what they're doing, for the most part. Those companies and agencies creating ugly ads? They're guilty of assault.
And, it's nice to see some people taking a stand of some sort. Hopefully, it's a sign of changes to come.
There are some really good ads out there. On television, in print, on the Web. There are some people doing some really creative stuff. But, for every one of those types, there are hundreds taking the low road. Doing what's easy or shocking or controversial. And, while the NFL & FOX and ABC & Oscar may not have gone about it the right way, they have both done their part to make headway in a cause that is incredibly near and dear to my heart: Saying no to ugly ads.
While their definition of ugly has been based more on a pejorative "poor taste" quotient, they were still trying to fight against ugly. Pay them a couple of million dollars and they can still tell you no? Genius. And welcomed. I'm willing to bet that I didn't really miss out on any thought-provoking creativity by not seeing the ads that have been pulled.
Now, maybe I'm overly sensitive. As I may have mentioned, I work in marketing in high-tech. To those of you unfamiliar with the advertising found in this realm, this means I regularly get the pleasure of seeing hideous ads all of the time. Ads where the phrase "feathered montage" is a staggering understatement. Ads where I also get the pleasure of seeing the same royalty-free office people time and time again, in hundreds and hundreds of ads. In fact, I see them more often than I see my family.
But it works, they say. Over and over. It's easy, it's cheap, and it works. They respond. And what do I say over and over? Just because they are used to looking at ugly, doesn't mean they like looking at ugly. No one likes ugly.
Now, what's ugly? That's subjective, for the most part. There are some ads (and I'm talking television, radio, print, and interactive) that are soooo ugly that everyone agrees. There are some that are a display in lackluster creativity. No one appreciates them and yet, there they are, assaulting our senses. Take any pop-up or pop-under ad, for instance. Your skin just started crawling from the mere mention.
But people respond, they say. Sure they do. People, in general, aren't very smart, especially when they're interacting with marketing. We can't rely on the audience to make the call. This isn't the movie business or the book business. We are paying to get in front of them, and as such, we have an obligation to refrain from assault. Besides, if they're responding to something ugly, do you think maybe, just maybe, they might respond even more favorably to something pretty?
Why can't we say no to ugly ads all the time? Why can't we get to the television, radio, publications, and Web sites that we frequent to understand that it's not just who advertises in a publication but how they advertise? Now granted, the company identity and positioning must remain intact, but their ad should be thematic with the publication. And the types of changes I'm proposing would hardly tarnish anyone's brand. If anything, making things prettier would be a win-win for the brand.
Remember, paying for an advertisement is like trying to buy the friends. If you're being asked to subject your friends, colleagues, and customers to it, you have the right to say no. Don't let the advertising erode your identity. Don't let it sully your brand. The quick buck isn't worth it.
Maybe the networks were just trying to avoid bad publicity. Who cares? It's still a means to an end. Avoiding bad press is a way of maintaining brand. It's like working with negative space. The network told people to stop doing something ugly, to make it pretty, or to go away. And they still made a tidy sum of cash in so doing.
But making pretty creative ads is hard, they say. That takes work. Yes, it does. And we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. Just because we can do it that way, doesn't mean that we should.
Do you think I'm way off base in my prima donna view? That's what comments are for, my friend. If you think it's ugly, tell me, and help me help myself. I promise to take the comments to heart before you return.
The right to better advertisements
| | Subscribe:
RSS, Bloglines
