You might find the beginning of this book a little pedestrian if you are not an advertising insider. But once it picks up speed, it's a hellraiser.
In the past 10-15 years you may have asked yourself, how did advertising go from capturing consumers’ hearts and minds with big, original ideas articulated with aesthetic brilliance to shamelessly ordinary messages, indistinguishable in look, tone and language from one another?
The answer calls to mind a brief exchange between two friends in Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises”:
Bill: “How did you go bankrupt?”
Mike: “Two ways. Gradually and then suddenly.”
There's also a shorter answer: idiotic clients + greedy management.
Ad Men > Mad Men > Media Men > Math Men.
Ken Auletta explains the horrible way down and backs it up with names, dates and figures, plus a few drawn conclusions. Like,
- 2007 is singled out as a possible tipping point, with the “empowerment of consumers, That’s the year Apple introduced the iPhone, the first smartphone, the same year Facebook shifted its audience focus from college students to everyone, and the same year Amazon’s Kindle was introduced. In years past, advertising was based on a premise that information was scarce. (…)
In these markets, where information flows freely, advertising that attempts to influence feels awkward, forced and disingenuous. Rather than building trust, advertising erodes it. Evidence of advertising fatigue is found in ad blockers and in Nielsen data that says half of those who watch TV shows they have recorded on their DVR devices skip past the ads.
The anxiety of the advertising community is revealed in the gibberish or verbal smokescreens they now employ. Just before the millennium, advertisers began to refer to themselves as “brand stewards,” as if the brand had a soul. Nike, as an amused Naomi Klein observed, announced that its mission was to “enhance people’s lives through sports and fitness”; Polaroid said it was selling “a social lubricant,” not a camera; IBM was promoting “business solutions, not computers.”
All this begs a fundamental question that comes up often in the advertising and marketing community: Are they sufficiently alarmed about the menace they face?”
- (in the past few years) “IBM absorbed thirty-one marketing companies; Accenture bought forty; and Deloitte twenty-six. Advertising Age has reported that eight of the top ten ad agencies are not traditional ad agencies but consulting and tech companies. (…) at the end of 2015 the three largest global digital agencies by revenue, according to Advertising Age, were companies new to the marketing business: IBM, Accenture, and Deloitte. And the market cap or stock value of IBM (about $165 billion) was double the combined value of the six largest advertising and marketing holding companies—WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, IPG, Havas, and Dentsu.”
- “the most likely to be disrupted now are the traditional creative agencies, and I’ll tell you why. Every publisher from Condé Naste to Hearst to NBC to Disney now has creative agency units being built inside. So Condé Nast has 23 Stories. Hearst is making all these investments in digital content creation. NBC has a content studio. Their mission is to sit down with Procter & Gamble and say, ‘We can bring you ideas. We actually know how to create it.’ They’re not saying this, but the implication is: ‘Why do you need a traditional advertising agency?’”
Today up to three quarters of the up to $2 trillion or so that is spent worldwide on advertising and marketing is not funnelled through the creative ad agencies featured in Mad Men. The rise of below-the-line marketing expenditures, including public relations, polling, design, branding, lobbying, and in-store sales promotions, was why Martin Sorrell and rival holding companies vied to stave off disruption by acquiring marketing firms. Platoons of disrupters keep coming over the ridge. Among them, none is more surprising than publishers posing as ad agencies.
This ambition was on display on a visit to the New York Times in January 2016. The Times employed an advertising sales team of 325 people, and if you spied them at their desks you saw that nearly half were coders and designers and copywriters creating ads for clients rather than just selling ad space. Under chief revenue officer Meredith Levien, they worked for the T Brand Studio, whose purpose she described this way: “We are now in the business of making advertising. Our ad sales person goes out with a content creator to meet clients.” The ads they create are interchangeably described as native ads or branded content, and they involve crafting stories featuring a brand. ”
- “The problem agencies have,” Wenda Millard, MediaLink vice chairman says, is that cost pressures from clients “is causing agencies to pay less to their employees. Because of that, they’re not as attractive. Why would I go to an agency that looks like a dinosauric entity rather than go to Google, or Facebook, or LinkedIn? Why would I do that, and be paid what I would be paid to work in a sweatshop around lots of unhappy people?”
- “Today the definition of marketing extends from the damage control of public relations firms summoned when a company like Volkswagen is embroiled in scandal; to survey research before a new product is introduced; to the targeting that data companies like Oracle sell to agencies and brands; to designing corporate logos or rebranding companies, as was done when Time Warner Cable was renamed Spectrum; to corporate positioning advice McKinsey & Company offers CEOs; to direct mail, blogs, podcasts, coupons, sponsorships, naming rights, purchased shelf space, corporate Web sites, in-store promotions, membership rewards programs, exhibitions, and young influencers like the Betches, who are paid to extol products on sites like YouTube.”
- “Google, tracks every YouTube video you watch (Google owns YouTube), every search term you enter, every result you click on. All of that data is tracked. And they use it. . . . We just don’t know how they use it. They say they use it to improve products and services. What does that mean?” Even if marketers don’t know your name as long as they have your IP address they can in most cases locate your building.
The accumulation of data to predict future behaviour has been labelled surveillance capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff, a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. Its pioneers have been digital companies like Google and Facebook that derive their marketing power from shadowing citizens and using data to become fortune-tellers.
“The game,” Zuboff wrote, “is no longer about sending you a mail-order catalogue or even about targeting online advertising. The game is selling access to the real-time flow of your daily life —your reality— in order to directly influence and modify your behaviour for profit. This is the gateway to a new universe of monetization opportunities: Restaurants who want to be your destination. Service vendors who want to fix your brake pads. Shops who will lure you like the fabled Sirens.” Success at this “game” flows to those with the “ability to predict the future—specifically the future of behaviour.”*
- “Advertising works as a value exchange,” Andrew Robertson of BBDO, says. “In exchange for advertising, consumers get free or reduced content costs. (…) Google, with 87 percent of its $79.4 billion in 2016 revenues supported by advertising, Facebook with over 95 percent ($26.9 billion out of $27.6 billion) in 2016, and Snapchat with 96 percent from advertising, would—like the TV networks and most radio—cease to be “free (if there were no advertising).”
There’s more. Much more. Worrying if you work at an agency; sad for those of us who loved creative ads; truly inconsequential for the rest of humanity.