In any profession it’s customary for old hands to tease new recruits.
To wind them up a bit.
In the RAF, in World War 2, they used to tell new recruits to watch out for the Oomegoolies bird.
The recruits would ask what made this particular bird different.
The old hands said they’d know it by its distinctive cry.
The bird had no legs or feet.
So when it came in to land it would scream “Oo me goolies….Oo me goolies.”
If the recruits hadn’t caught on by then, they asked where they could see one of these birds.
They were told they probably couldn’t see it, because of the bird’s strange ritual.
“The bird flies round and round in ever decreasing circles, until it eventually disappears up its own arse.”
At which point all the old hands fell about laughing and the new recruit cottoned-on that he’d been had.
Personally I don’t find that story so far fetched.
In fact I’ve experienced that very phenomenon many times.
Rory Sutherland said “A good idea needs wings, but it also needs a landing gear.”
In other words, it’s no good having a great strategy that only works in marketing meetings.
If it doesn’t land in the public’s consciousness it’s pointless.
We know £18.3 billion is spent every year on all forms of advertising and marketing.
We know just 4% is remembered positively, 7% is remembered negatively, and a massive 89% isn’t noticed or remembered.
That’s roughly £17 billion of advertising that doesn’t have any landing gear.
And the reason most advertising goes unnoticed is the second part of the bird’s behaviour.
Meetings where everyone goes round and round, trying to solve every minor detail of every real or imagined problem, until they disappear up their own rear end.
Or, as it’s known in economics: The Law Of Diminishing Marginal Returns.
Where we let the trivial take precedence over the essential.
Because the most crucial problem must always be: 89% of advertising isn’t noticed or remembered.
Or, as Bill Bernbach said “If no one notices your advertising, everything else is academic.”
So all of those box-ticking exercises aren’t just a waste of time.
They’re actually harmful.
They get in the way.
They contribute to failure.
Which is why, as David Ogilvy said “Strategy is sacrifice.”
The more information we load into the communication, the more we confuse the communication.
The more we confuse the communication the more we reduce the clarity.
The more we reduce the clarity, the more we become part of the wallpaper.
The more we become part of the wallpaper the more we disappear.
And we go exactly the same route as that RAF bird.
Hi Dave, I sometimes wonder if people who read your statistics and our comments think we’re just grumpy old men who haven’t got a clue about what we’re talking about, so I found this clip from a young guy and posted it to make the point about the silent young majority who support your statistics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpBYkLXG0TU
I’ve been to the cinema on the weekend, a truly rare occasion for me with ticket prices being what they are. Sitting through the ads I was utterly embarrassed to work in advertising. What a load of dog shit that was. I remember most of the ads, but for all the wrong reasons.
Here’s one example from NatWest: We are what we do. I could literally smell the planners, strategists, anthropologists, psychologists, clients and focus groups pouring over every millisecond of that abomination of an ad that’s been cut together from stock videos on Getty.
Wow.
But surely, the crème de la crème of advertising, the SuperBowl, must’ve had the best advertising? Nope. All pretty mediocre to average spots. Tide was probably the best, but still not great if watched on its own and not live.
The spots were full of brand yawnifestos and political undertones. They had nothing to do with me booking a flat for convenience or buying a car for its features.
I’m beginning to question whether or not I picked the right career out of art school.
Let’s play spot the difference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX2VA2V0XcA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siBRvC9YSc4
Steakandcheese: The current NatWest campaign is cringeworthy all round. Wait till you see the other executions. If you cut off the endframe there’d be literally no way of knowing what brand the ad was for (not that anyone’s paying attention by the endframe anyway.)
Kev: If it helps, I’m relatively young, and most people my age in the business don’t buy this garbage – they just go along with it because they feel their jobs depend on it. The true believers in my experience are all in the 35-45ish range.
@J I’m not that young myself anymore. I just feel like every year I’ve been out of art school (which was a long time ago) advertising gets worse and worse.
Dear Dave,
I’m writing an obit of Sid Roberson. It would be nice to mention your story on Sid and Saatchi in a Roller when they’re confronted by an angry motorist. Did the story come straight from Sid? Lawyers mightworry about it. FYI I’m writing this in cooperation with Sid’s family.
Phil
Hi J. Compared to the 35-45ish year olds you mention, even I am “younger” and I would happily assume Dave is even younger because it’s about valuing the work as Advertising that is fresh, groundbreaking, relevant and different. As James Lowther once told me ‘It has to subvert their thinking’ corporate advertising should not be not an insurance policy against unemployment by being able to point the finger to the next man in the line. Both of the above banking campaigns remind me of work that was done for Guinness and Paul Arden’s corporate work for Hilton Hotels. With real Creative Directors, the buck stops here. Dave Trott, Bill Gallagher, Alex Taylor, Simon Dicketts, Jeremy Sinclair, James Lowther, Paul Arden R.I.P. I can’t talk for Dave or any of the above. I would not even think of it. I respect these people greatly because all of them and many more have been responsible for groundbreaking work. I can only speak for myself. Regarding defending the work or keeping your job, I’ve done both and I can happily say it’s far easier to defend your work with a job than without one. It’s the business that has to change. It is very hard to change people, especially if they are entrenched in client retaining power. The great idea has to be sold, but to sell a great idea at all cost and lose the business isn’t the purpose of Great Advertising Agencies. Great Advertising Agencies Sell the Great Idea, win more business from the client because of it, win awards as a result of their creativity AND make a thumping great fortune for their clients. I doubt if either of the above ads do any of those, not because they’re not well crafted, or because the music score is bad, or the storyline is unclear, but because they are same old same old. As John Hegarty puts it ‘Wallpaper’. Like electricity, they have become so big they have become meaningless. I once asked an advertising friend why a particular anti drink-driving poster campaign in a certain country was so bad? The reply I got was ‘It’s not about creativity, it’s not about saving lives, It’s about the Ministry of Transport government department making sure they use up their budget or they’ll lose it.’ People need to remember the true purpose of the advertising and this seems to have been forgotten.
If banks want to do meaningful corporate campaigns perhaps they should put their hands in their pockets rather than ours.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38564137
Not being one to wish to upset everyone in Adland without good reason,
I decided to give the “Spot the difference post” (3) an acid test to
see if what I think and feel resonates with anyone in the Banking industry.
The results were astonishing. I hope creatives, planners and account men are reading.
Question 1
What does the Lloyds Bank Ad make you think and feel?
“It’s a bit strange to see a horse walking through a hospital but I guess they are saying for everything in life you need money.”
Question 2
What does the Nat West Ad make you think and feel?
“Nothing. I don’t know what it is talking about.”
Question 3
What is the difference in message between these ads?
“Nothing.”
Now look at an ad which was created 50 years ago, but still resonates as a powerful corporate campaign.
It was done by a Creative Director not a committee. It has a Simple Universally Recognisable Truth and
is Brutally Simple in Thought, execution, and most of all Idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NebZb7dnd8
Whoever you are, good luck with your next campaign.
How much time do you take to get inspired?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16p9YRF0l-g
Pingback: Customers just don’t care… | Cold's blog
Pingback: There's no power without connection - Wyatt Media
Pingback: Always: Campaign Critique – Shira Zinkin: Advertising and PR
Pingback: 10 top creative ads of the week: @Teleflora, @GilletteIndia and more | Bhatnaturally