Channel 4 axes Mad Bad Ad Show from Friday nights

by Ed Feast - 12.3.2012

Good. This dismal show merely perpetuates the myth that everybody who works in advertising is a floppy haired twerp who studied philosophy and wears crappy ‘Shoreditch’ clothes.

Bad Bad Ad Show

I’m not sure how this got commissioned to be honest. The irony of it being commissioned to win favour with big wigs at creative agencies would be overwhelming, so it must have been commissioned with another commercial purpose. Perhaps to deliver more young adults, although this hasn’t happened; in fact it hasn’t really delivered many of any adults.

The concept revolves around a panel of comedians and advertising executives answering a number of questions, and delivering wonderful insight into the exciting world of advertising. The climax of the show is the airing of an advert that each comedian has ‘made’ that week.

The quiz section of the show is mind numbing trivia, peppered with some funny interjections by the comedians, and some often cringe worthy comments from the ad execs having a go at making a funny.

The VT of the creative process and production is belittling to say the least. Nothing that they show could convince even the most gullible human being, that creating adverts is not easy and common sense. Seeing some of the meetings made be heave as it brought back memories of some awful sessions I’ve taken part in myself.

And that got me thinking…is advertising actually all a load of bunk and hype?

No.

The issue is that it’s really quite difficult to explain the genius behind the invention of the best advertising and media campaigns. This doesn't come across in the show, and makes the industry look slapstick, fueled with insight based on ridiculous focus groups.

Often the best strategy is the one which, when invented, actually makes so much sense that you wonder why it took 3 weeks and days worth of research to get to.

Fosters is doing everything SO right at the moment

by Ed Feast - 5.3.2012

With so many big brands banging on about engagement and content, here’s a brand really doing it. The active commissioning of classic comedy supplied free of charge online is just brilliant.

Fosters, suiting all of us, ooh.

In writing this, I came across this wonderful snippet from the Indy in 2006, which clangs a knell, which summons TV advertising to heaven or to hell.

The article trumpeted that “the online universe has secured another significant scalp in its battle with the old-fashioned mainstream media, with Foster's becoming the first beer brand to abandon TV and do its advertising online.”

Really? I hope nobody actually believed that at the time.

Whether or not they meant it is by the by, the point I want to make, is that Fosters have come such a massive way since their first attempt real stab online.

In this article they discuss trying to use ‘viral’ advertising instead of traditional TV branding adverts. As we know, they have far from abandoned TV, but they have embraced the viral principle; it’s just taken a little while for them to get it right though.

Essentially, by investing in content, long term they might not have to spend as much on advertising (although 2011 saw their biggest TV spend since before 2007 so we’ll see). By creating the Fosters Funny programming, they have genuinely become a patron – much the same as the rich used to patronise classical musicians, like Beethoven or Mozart.

The content, Mid Morning Matters, Fast Show, Vic and Bob, has such currency that people are actively seeking it out and forwarding it peer to peer. Why? Well, because it’s actually good.

Furthermore, rather than inventing new content, they’ve cleverly opted to go for the tried and tested classics, and people love them for it. It’s a brand breathing new life into content that we thought had dried up. Bravo.

Next time somebody says ‘how can we get this to go viral’ then we know the answer. Don’t scrimp, and do something that people love.

Fun police, pull over…

by Ed Feast - 28.2.2012

I’ve always wondered how programs like Basic Instinct can show pretty sexual content, but if you want to show a bum cheek on an advert, it’s deemed offensive and won’t get cleared for transmission. Isn’t it about time the Fun Police loosen up?

Cheeky adverts causing a stink

Clearcast are the industry funded body which hold the keys to the gates of heaven (well, airtime). All TV adverts must be checked to ensure that everything that graces our screens is not misleading or offensive; anything that they do no rubber stamp, will not get on air.

This all seems to make sense – I mean, we wouldn’t want old ladies being misled by daytime ads promising a cleaning product that will get wine stains out of carpets, or young men thinking that they’re texting a lovely lady rather than an automated machine for their kicks. That would be silly.

So they do perform a useful service, protecting our innocent ears from naughty lies and rude pictures.

Whilst there definitely should be restrictions on content shown before the watershed, they should be relaxed post-watershed to mirror the programming. OK, so you’ll get slightly more risqué adverts after 23:00 but nothing that would even come close to the programming.

Whilst grownups can chortle about how over protective nanny Clearcast is, we cannot forget that there are a lot of busybody, easily offended adults out there, who are startled by their own farts, let alone the glimpse of a trannie.

An example would be the Paddy Power advert which was pulled from air following a number of complaints. Brave Clearcast actually passed this, only to get bitten on the proverbial bottom as busybodies across the UK united to have a good old whinge:

“Last week we approved a TV ad for Paddy Power featuring references to transgendered people. When making our decision to approve the ad, we took into account the fact that the advertiser had sought a view from the Beaumont Society (a body run by and for those who cross dress or are transsexual) which did not find the script idea offensive.

However following a number of complaints over the last few days, it appears that the ad has caused offence and in consultation with broadcasters, it has been decided that the ad should no longer run on their TV or VoD services in its current format. We regret offence that may have been caused.”

Herein lies the problem. Clearcast have insisted that the advertiser contact a society run for transsexuals and cross dressers, which they have done, and agree that the advert is not offensive to this group.

Who is complaining then?

I can only assume that it’s people who are getting offended on behalf of the transgender people, and complaining on their behalf. I can’t imagine it’s bigots who are offended by the sight of transgender people on their TV as their complaints should be ignored.

The point here then, is that with a broadcast medium such as TV, that reaches almost all of the UK, adverts do have to be inoffensive to anybody that might see the advert. Which could be anybody.

Perhaps people planning these campaigns could do it better, and select channels, dayparts and programming that is unlikely to reach people who would be offended…or perhaps they wanted the advert banned for extra cover? Cheeky.

Look at me, look at me…(yawn)

by Ed Feast - 21.2.2012

Performing ‘tracks’ from your latest bedroom ‘album’ to 10 unreceptive people can only be a sign of ego overriding a painfully obvious sentiment of tedium and apathy. What can advertisers learn from this display?

Listening is as important as speaking...maybe more so

Last week I went to a bar to see 4 bands, each play a 30 minute set. We were all charged the princely sum of £4 to go and see a friend perform, to friends of the other bands on the bill – of which there were 10.

The evening was billed as a ‘Blues’ night, and the first two performers were very good, and did indeed play within the parameters of the genre. In fact, one of the acts was superb, and I did feel sorry that there weren’t more people to experience it, but that’s by the by.

Then the third act took to the stage.

They proceeded to perform some sort of awful noise, which could only be described as the result of a terrible collaboration of David Bowie, Offspring, and Coldplay. This was not what we expected hear at all. Being a polite crowd everyone clapped (a little) and then whispered disparaging comments between loud songs.

The interesting thing was, that the more they played on, ignoring the palpable sense of disapproval from the audience, the more intense the whispered insults became. In fact, the turned from the rather innocuous, “I’m not really sure about this song,’ into quite personal attacks against each member of the band…the guitar player was singled out by two member of the audience for a vicious whispered attack.

The point here is that it’s important to read your audience as an advertiser, and not to plough on regardless. Even though a brand might think that their collaboration with ‘Rammstein’ might make them hip and urban, are they actually more like a pervy uncle at a 16 year olds birthday?

An audience will resent you if you don’t connect with them on a level that they expect from you as a brand. The important thing is to read this early, as a tremor of disapproval can lead to a full earthquake of resentment and damage.

Online comments inflate sense of self-importance

by Ed Feast - 16.2.2012

New sampling store in the UK opens, offering ‘free’ trials of products unearths interesting observations in people’s online behaviour.

New store on Goodge Street, London

A new concept for trying numerous products through one central store has launched in London, and the whinging and whining from the public begins (mostly from the Daily Mail readers).

The concept is that people can have access to 5 free items a month, to use and keep, in return for answering some basic market research questions.

Why might people whinge then? Well, the most common gripe is that it’s not totally ‘free.’ OK, so you do have to pay an annual ‘membership’ fee of £60, which means the products aren’t technically free, but depending on how you select your products, you can get great value for money; one journalist calculated around £350 of value for the annual membership.

The interesting thing here is looking at the reader responses to an article on the Daily Mail online.

Here’s one quote from a Daily Mail reader called Chris, from Wales:

“Slightly misleading headline, don't you think? Not exactly free when you need to fork out a £60 annual membership fee. I also took a moment to read the website. Seems you're limited to five products a month, and if you're outside of the London area, you actually have to pay more! (£90 per annum). It's an interesting concept, yes - but I think i'll stick to my usual shopping routine thanks!”

The interesting thing here is why Chris thought that anybody cares about what he has to say. It’s not as it he’s discovered that Hovis are putting arsenic in their next batch of bread, or that we’ve been drinking pigs milk for decades because we export our cows milk to France?

This is a totally inert comment.

Frank Rodgers takes this further with a wonderful theory that a horrible plague of spongers will soon be selling these free products to unsuspecting middle England.

"Sample Trend", will eventually find all their free products are "up for sale". As those on the dole will get 20 of their friends, who are also on the dole, to lay down 60 pounds each of your hard earned tax dollars. Then, they will pool all these free products, together totaling $5,000 pounds worth of goodies per year. Where they will either sell them door to door in the neighborhood or you'll find them on eBay. For triple the price. Bet on it happening everywhere "Sample Trends" are located. Give it three months and you'll be reading about this scam right here in the DM. It's just too good for these "spongers" to pass up. And it doesn't matter if all their products have "SAMPLE" -not for "sale" written all over them. There will be a market for them, somewhere.

I wonder whether Frank gets upset that Tesco mark up their products?

What does this tell us about consumers nowadays though, apart from the fact that there are a lot of morons in the UK?

It’s interesting that people (Daily Mail readers) are SO suspicious of anything, and take great pleasure in trying to ‘Dan Brown’ their way through life; inventing conspiracy at every turn. As an advertiser, it’s important to remember this then as the thing that people are taking issue with is the positioning. It would be interesting to see how the concept would have been received, if instead of the concept being positioned as ‘free’ it was positioned as a shop where your money was worth 5 times as much each time you walked through the door.

Here it seems that a lot of people have refused to look at the value that you can benefit from, simply because the £60 per year membership wasn’t clear enough. Lesson here is that brands need to make sure that their hook isn’t too good to be true.

"We need this to go viral..."

by Ed Feast - 10.1.2012

Striking terror into any self-respecting marketing professional, this irritating zeitgeist must be the cause of most disappointment to marketing directors, as their budget is spend on skateboarding cats.

Antisocial media?

There’s little more terrifying than the word ‘viral’ popping up in a brief as a core deliverable. Ok, it’s great that an advertiser wants to create content which is worthy of being passed, peer to peer, across the world, but it shouldn’t be forced.

The sad fact is that a lot of the impressions that ‘viral’ advertising gets, isn’t truly viral anyway. Advertisers pay (sometimes unwittingly) for their ‘content’ to be posted around the internet, essentially paying for their impressions. This is not viral – this is just a CPM model.

Why do advertisers have to pay for their viral to go viral?

Because their ‘viral’ is just a rubbish advert.

The problem stems from the fact that people start out with the intention of creating something both entertaining AND commercial – not classic bed fellows.

Even with the best will in the world, the creatives can pitch something funny / outrageous / clever / entertaining, but the commercial team thwart this with a bloody great ‘buy this product’ message at the end, which instantly kills the pass-on-ability of the content. People know when they’re being used as a conduit for crappy advertising.

There are some brilliant examples of where people have got this right, but there are more example of awful attempts. Just posting your TV advert on a facebook site or Youtube will never yield results, furthermore, it’s a massive irritation.

Desmond and Mr Kipling in custard pie shocker

by Ed Feast - 29.6.2011

...try as he might, neither him nor his team can seem to think of anything other than sex to sell any of their media, but he does make exceedingly good posters

Victory for creative...sad projection of what attracts men's attention

Leaving aside the fact that Desmond seems to scowl and contact his lawyers every time he's accused of any link to porn, this poster is interesting for another reason.

It is perfect.

This is how to design a poster; simple message, arresting, thought provoking, consumed within seconds.

I now know that if I want to watch lesbians, then I have to watch Candy Bar Girls on Channel 5.

YouTube reveals research on ad skipping

by Ed Feast - 10.6.2011

30% of pre-roll adverts are skipped on YouTube - isn't this just people voting with their fingers? Good ad = watch it, Bad ad = skip

Allowing consumers to skip makes brands try harder

Most of the mainstream broadcasters in the UK force their audience to watch the pre-roll adverts before viewing the content.

YouTube took the bold step of allowing people to skip after 5 seconds. Initially this sounds like a brave step, and a needless one to be honest, as people seem perfectly happy to sit through the ads on ITV player etc.

But on looking further into this, it's actually a great thing for brands if they're willing to try harder to engage.

This is probably one of the only real opportunities for brands to test how enjoyable or sticky their ads are with the general public - and probably much cheaper than a bunch of focus groups.

Brands can now use this to test whether their ads are as engaging as they thought. Perhaps even to try multiple creative to see which was skipped the most.

Let's see which advertisers make the best use of this info.

The saucier the better

by Ed Feast - 25.5.2011

In media we always talk about selling the people, the impacts, and not the medium. It can be easy to overlook the content though, which as we are all tired of hearing, is ‘King.’

Media: it's a tough gig

Although on a human level, we might agree or disagree with the idea of injunctions of varying strengths, from a media planning and buying point of view, we should hope for lowest common denominator stuff from the red tops.

This sort of salacious storyline is what makes the Sun the highest circulating daily newspaper in the UK, and how we can target millions of people with one advert.

If the censorship brigade get their way, the sort of stories that are of mass interest, but little real integrity, would disappear, or at best become boring as pseudonyms and vagueness, beige the would be sizzlers.

We talk about fragmentation being a good thing for targeting small groups of people, but what about advertisers who want to reach lots of people.

As far as the story goes, I really couldn’t care less. What I do care about is media still being able to produce stories and content which are of real interest to people. If people aren’t reading or watching stuff…then we’re going to struggle to engage and communicate with them.

Come on Rooney…you know what to do…

Shirley McGlynn leaves AdConnection to join MarketPlace

by Ed Feast - 11.3.2011

Shirley McGlynn joins MarketPlace as Client Services Director, to work alongside Managing Director, Ed Feast.

Shirley McGlynn, Client Services Director

She will be responsible for building the Client Services team, and is at the centre of the plans for growth of the agency in 2011.

Ed Feast said: “We are delighted to welcome somebody of Shirley’s calibre to the company. She brings with her a wealth of media experience and will be leading the drive for new business.”

MarketPlace launched in September 2010 as a joint venture with GuerillaVision, the creative advertising agency. Central to the partnership is the facility to offer full service to small and medium sized businesses.

Shirley McGlynn said: “MarketPlace has done some excellent work since the launch last year. Solid strategic thinking and practical, cost effective implementation are so important in the current economic climate, which is why I am confident that MarketPlace will continue to grow in 2011.”

Hachette folds teen mag Sugar

by Ed Feast - 25.1.2011

In a move that will surprise no one, Hachette announce that they will close their teen title 'Sugar' in March. Is this a sign that as younger generations mature, they will shun print media all together?

It’s no secret that print, as a medium, has been battling hard to maintain its audiences and revenue. Publishers are racing to become ‘content providers’ in the same way that radio stations have been doing in the wake of ‘Personal On Demand’ listening. By stepping away from being a ‘magazine’ or ‘radio station’ and becoming a content provider, they should be future proofing their business. Why is it important for magazines to embrace this move away from print on paper?

As audiences dwindle, magazines will begin to fold as people shun the medium rather than the content. People are voting with their wallets on the way that they want to consume their media. I would hazard a guess that teenaged girls aren’t saying that they don’t want the content that’s published in Sugar anymore, rather that they don’t want to buy magazines any more.

Product placement sanctioned from Feb 2011

by Ed Feast - 20.12.2010

Media regulator OFCOM have confirmed that product placement will be allowed on UK television from the end of Feb 2011

This is either the best, or worst thing that has happened to the UK Television market - this will become clear when the final rules and guidelines are published.

Ofcom's new rules "will enable commercial broadcasters to access new sources of revenue, whilst providing protection for audiences," the regulator said.

Everything being well, this will generate further revenue that should be reinvested into good programming.

The fear is that the pull of making everything overly commercial, may have too much of an influence over the commissioning process.

As with every rule, they are there to be pushed and pushed until somebody shout 'STOP'

If the leash is kept tight from the beginning, and it is handled tastefully, then it should be a great success.

The question is, what impact it will have on the advertising revenue?

Estimates are that this will be worth £150million to the UK advertising market, although it is not yet clear whether this is incremental revenue. Will brands pull advertising budgets, in favour of product placement?

I'm guessing that OFCOM have studied the American model which has been working for years, and have used this as the basis for the UK guidelines. This will have been well thought out, with all implications considered.

If it doesn't interefere with the viewers experience, then it will have a smooth transition with the viewing public. If however, it is done badly, it could cause some programs to lose viewers very quickly.

i believe?

by Ed Feast - 8.11.2010

Can i, the first paid for weekday quality to be launched in Britain in almost 25 years, succeed in a market which is becoming increasingly used to free and digital content.

Andrew Mullins, managing director of IPL, said: "We are creating a newspaper for the 21st century, designed for people with a thirst for information and entertainment in the limited time that they have available."

The concept is good – to condense the volume and price of the daily quality whilst maintaining the integrity of the journalism. This allows for a lower cover price - which should in theory be turned into higher circulation – delivering higher advertising revenue.

Following Lebedev’s success with the London Evening Standard, anything seems possible, although perhaps the efforts should be concentrated on the Indy, which seems to be entering its twilight years. That aside, there is undoubtedly a gap in the market for this kind of product, but is there a market in the gap?

Stephen Noble, head of press trading at Mindshare, thinks there is: "My impressions of it are that it's better than expected and the cover price of 20p should mean that people will buy it.”
Noble has a point – 20p should not be a barrier to purchase for the young affluent audience, so if the content is good then it has every chance.

It does, however, have to offer something considerably different to the Metro, and avoid being nothing more than a rehashing of the previous day’s Evening Standard. The new title, i, has to work as a standalone quality publication and quickly as well.

As a product, it looks strong, and it is well priced, which leaves two more p’s – place and promotion. Place may be the first stumbling stone as it will inevitably struggle to compete with the Metro’s convenient distribution network.

The real issue I think, is the promotion, which is either not targeted at me, or has been woefully undercooked. I have noticed some posters on the underground, and at bus stops, but it really doesn’t tell me about the paper, and whether it’s aimed at me. If they’ve put £100k behind the promotion of this, I’d be amazed.

It would be a shame for this to flop due to a lack of initial investment. For this title to compete against the culture of free news & content it has to shout louder than competition to give people the reason to part with their cash. This will take a leap of faith though, as any real ad revenue will not be generated for a while. Perhaps this lack of investment is a reflection of the lack of belief in the product? Is the battle over, before it has begun?

Facial recognition technology introduces new targeting potential for out of home advertising

by Ed Feast - 27.9.2010

NEC boasts a facial recognition breakthrough which can differentiate between gender, ethnicity, and age – but is this going to improve consumers experience or is it a step too far?

NEC facial recognition technology in Japan

As a consumer, I’m not convinced I want this. Do we really want to feel like we’re being followed around everywhere we go? Do you want to see your face on a 6 sheet as you walk past, superimposed on a model dressed in some awful emo getup, because you’re in Shoreditch and a 25 year old male? Posters can differentiate between basic human features, but not taste or preference.

There are inevitably going to be issues regarding privacy here as well. Although the posters do not store the images that they use, they do display people’s images without permission. This isn’t a huge issue to anyone with any sense of proportion, but I’m sure they’ll be some uppity individuals who write to their MP.

From the advertisers point of view I can see this being very useful. It provides the opportunity to really engage with more exact audiences, and to make out of home more engaging and personal. If advertisers can serve ‘personalised’ adverts then they will undoubtedly be more impactful which in turn increases the effect and influence.

It’s a thin line though, and I fear that if an advertiser oversteps the mark, and overzealous ruling could put the whole concept on ice. As Spiderman knows, ‘with great power comes great responsibility.’

Is my computer a TV or is my TV a computer?

by Ed Feast - 8.9.2010

As Google are poised to launch their TV service this autumn in the US, with a view to roll out across the world next year, should TV manufacturers worry?

Google takes on the TV market

With their sights set firmly upon the global TV advertising spend, Google is on the cusp of launching a full browsing service via TV sets. The exact functionality is not 100% clear yet, although you can make quite an educated guess.

The question is though, whether this is going to be the mini-disk, or betamax of modern technology. Surely as the home computer evolves SKY or Virgin will team up with Dell or Apple to integrate a set top box within the home computer?

That aside, what are the advertising opportunities? Well, to be honest I’m not entirely sure what it’s going to add. We already know that people are surfing the net whilst watching TV, essentially cramming more media hours in.

The real issue is whether people will need to cut away from the program they’re watching if they want to follow up on an advert. This has been a real issue for the red button technology, and I feel that Google TV may suffer the same problem.

That said, Google seldom make mistakes, and it’s going to be very exciting to see how this giant of the media world implements this.

Hello darling…mwah…mwah!

by Ed Feast - 6.9.2010

What is it with us Brits that makes us so determined to introduce the continental, and frankly un-British ‘Bisous’ into greetings?!

Hello...how do you do?

I’m sorry, but I really can’t understand our obsession with embarrassing ourselves when meeting strangers in a business environment. We’ve all been there. The person that you’re due to meet walks towards you, and the worry sets in start to think ‘Oh God…here we go – are they going for the bloody kisses? They look like a kisser…oh no…right, here we go.’

Panic sets in, and the inevitable happens, they lunge forward and your cheeks (on your face) meet. ‘Oh man, that wasn’t too bad’ you think, as you beat a hasty retreat, only to find them lurching for a second on the other cheek.

Now it’s pandemonium as you’ve left them hanging, lips puckered. You start to sweat – you’ve really messed it up now. The panic sets in and you spring forward only to clumsily bash faces and then make an awkward joke about ‘ah, you went for the second…ha ha…great’

Disaster.

We don’t scoot about shouting ‘Ciao’ or take naps in the middle of the afternoon, or any of the good or amusing stuff. No. We take the one thing that is so unconstitutionally British and mash it up with the handshake meaning that there’s absolutely no way of knowing how the person approaching you is about to greet you.

I am now setting a no bisous rule – handshakes all the way.

Sometimes two heads aren’t better than one

by Ed Feast - 3.9.2010

Studies show that if brainstorming isn’t done correctly, it yields less ideas than if each person sat in silence and wrote their thoughts independently

Brainstorming is harder than it looks

Have you ever sat in a ‘brainstorm’ with a group of colleagues and wonder how on earth 2 hours have passed, and why the session has produced such a tiny number of poor quality ideas? I’d hazard a guess that more than 80% of ‘brainstorms’ that are carried out fall into this category.

A brainstorm is made up of a group of people and a facilitator. A good facilitator can get great results from even the least inspiring group of people, but with all the will in the world, a poor facilitator couldn’t get even a half decent result out of a group of the finest minds in the world.

The blame then falls directly at the feet of the facilitator – poor result, poor facilitator.

For some reason many people in business think that brainstorming can be done with no preparation and little direction. The worst case scenario is a ‘warm up’ exercise followed by the facilitator saying ‘right…let’s go’ whilst standing next to the whiteboard with an expectant look on their face. Idea generation is an art, and requires a lot of practice and discipline.

Here are a few basic suggestions for a more productive brainstorm.
- Plan the structure in advance
- Think of some ideas yourself before you start so if there’s a silence you can help people along
- Keep people in line – don’t be afraid to stop a wayward thought short
- Make sure that you keep the end goal in mind and always steer the group back on track
- Make sure at the end of the session you go over the ideas as a group and decide which are to be followed up

Finally…the worst thing you can hear in a brainstorm is ‘no idea is a bad idea.’ This is total rubbish.

Wheels on a fish is a bad idea, sausages made of glass are a bad idea.

TV working hard in midfield whilst the online glory boy heads home

by Ed Feast - 27.8.2010

Recent evidence shows that 58% of people regularly mix their TV with other types of media. This ‘media stacking’ allows people to fit up to 9 media hours, in to 6 actual hours.

TV and online working together

We know that people believe TV is the most memorable form of advertising, and that increasingly people are watching and surfing simultaneously. This presents a great opportunity for advertisers – the power of TV and the response potential of online.

Previously there has been a limited return path from TV advertising; a phone call would be the most immediate response. Now the consumer can see a powerful advert, check out the product online, find the best price, and buy it. This minimises the decay in the effect of the advert, which maximises its value.

Television advertising puts all the leg work in, getting people interested in a product, creating all the chances, and online is there to head them home.

TV voted the most memorable form of advertising by consumers

by Ed Feast - 27.8.2010

In a recent survey by YouGov for Deloitte, 52% of respondents said that television was more memorable than any other form of advertising.

Consumers recognise power of TV

This backs up the work that the IPA did entitled ‘Marketing in the age of accountability’ which reported that TV advertising delivered the best return on investment for advertisers. Good news for broadcasters in a time where the online world is jockeying for it’s crown.

The research also identified that 86% of viewers skipped through the ads when watching timeshifted shows. This really is no surprise at all, but it did trigger the rather unfair Guardian headline “TV advertising skipped by 86% of viewers.”

The truth is that the amount of timeshifted viewing is tiny, and that linear viewing still accounts for the vast majority of consumption. Furthermore timeshifting helps broadcasters retain viewers as they can catch up on missed episodes, whereas in the past those viewers would have dropped away and lost interest.

Advertainment is here to stay

by Ed Feast - 24.8.2010

Cadbury and BT are driving a new style of advertising which relies on entertaining their audience, not selling to them.

Cadbury Spots v Stripes advert

In early 2007 the gorilla ad was broadcast for the first time. This ad split the marketing and creative world into many camps, but can be generalised into pro and con.

The pros (mostly creative minds) hailing it as a mighty success because it’s so clever… just as a cube of chocolate causes a 'moment of joy', so the new Cadbury's strategy is about creating those moments of joy with communications (quote Faris Yakob).

The cons (mostly marketing and selling minds) shrieking that the new commercial does not show chocolate; it doesn't show people eating chocolate; throughout its full 90 seconds, it doesn't mention the C word once. (quote Laurence Green). How then could it possibly be worth the airtime?

The point is, and Laurence Green identifies this, is that people don’t really want to hear people droning on about how their product is going to change your life. People watch TV to be entertained – so entertain them.

Cadbury have embraced this, and are leading the way with their most recent Spots v Stripes ad. They’re creating something that people actually want to watch. They’ll even turn the volume up and shush people in the room so they can watch it.

BT definitely deserves a mention here as well with their soap style advert capturing the minds of the nation. We’re suckers as well, with 1.6 million people voting for a happy ending.

This is the beginning of advertisers creating content to entertain audiences with the broadcast platform, and the response has been good. Advertainment is here to stay.