Atomic Direct, LTD

Long ago studies began to suggest that advertising tends to be more effective when it’s “likable”. And very quickly, likability became an advertising absolute.

So disagreeing with the concept of likability would seem to be advertising death. But I do disagree — with today’s interpretation. Because here in 2010, the way agencies have decided to make likable advertising creates advertising that consumers hate.

The Beginning of Likability. This concept starts from the simple truth that people want to like the people they buy products from. Since advertising reflects your brand, product, and the people behind it, it makes fundamental sense that likable advertising is more effective than unlikable advertising. Statistical studies confirm this as discussed by Dr. Bryon Sharp in his new book “How Brands Grow”.

Expanding our sense of likability, Dr. Sharp explains that “…the gentle, if complex, emotional reaction of liking increased sales effectiveness of advertising because it encouraged consumers to pay a little more attention.” (p. 204)

Likability Turns Ugly. Unfortunately, from these common sense and statistically proven beginnings, the idea of likability has mutated like the monster rising from the swamp.

The problem starts with agencies and creative teams who make likability their top goal. I’ve watched research teams investigate whether consumers like advertising while ignoring issues like whether they find what the ad says to be powerful or meaningful.

Today, the ad business concept of likability goes even further. Far too many agencies seek primarily to create consumer passion about the advertising creative itself and ignore the brand or product.

And, so, our advertising swamp monster has severed its connection with reality in order to focus its energy on creating what portfolio schools/art institutes consider “entertainment”.

Yikes. Advertising needs to be likable so that people retain our messages better. But that means, first and foremost, that we need messages. Only then can you focus on likability (among other also critically important factors).

Then Social Media Blows it Out of Control. I won’t dwell on the absurdities of most corporate sponsored social media. Agencies love this new playground whether it benefits their clients or not. But I will note, as I’ve said before, most consumers don’t want to be your friend. And getting the advertising value from likability doesn’t happen because Facebook ether-friends “like” your brand or product.

Is Modern Advertising Likable? No – Consumers Hate a Lot of It. I’ve spent a lot of time listening to consumers talk about their feelings about advertising. And I’ve spent quite a bit of time digging into quantitative research about what consumers retain from advertising.

Some ads which agencies consider highly creative are truly enjoyed by consumers. More often, consumers struggle to recall the brand and/or product that is being advertised, are turned off by meaningless edginess, rebel at self-satisfied “high art”, and become frustrated that advertisers interrupt their media with meaningless drivel. The problem with modern advertising isn’t that it interrupts us, but that it doesn’t deliver meaning.

Understanding Likability in a Human Way. Let’s consider buying a car. I think it’s obvious that you’re more likely to buy a car from someone you like than from someone you dis-like. But also, most people are unlikely to buy a car from their best friend or someone who is “just like them”. Most people want to buy from someone who has solid knowledge about the type of car they’re considering.

So, no matter how much you may like the salesman, you’ll hesitate to sign a 5 year loan on a $40,000 purchase if the salesman can’t tell you why it’s a good car for your needs or explain the deal on the loan.

This suggests that likability isn’t broadly determined, but must be uniquely considered within the product or brand sphere being advertised.

Question is: Does Your Work Respect Humanity? The next time your agency is talking about likability, sit back on the fringes of the conversation and listen – really listen – to what’s being said.

Hopefully, you’ll discover a very human sense, respectful of the consumer’s true need for the product. Grab this sense and encourage it. Because your advertising can really only become likable when you understand the human needs of your consumers and explain to them the things you offer to meet those needs. And it’s even better when you do this in likable and entertaining ways.

Copyright 2011 – Doug Garnett – All Rights Reserved

Long ago studies began to suggest that advertising tends to be more effective when it’s “likable”. And very quickly, likability became an advertising absolute.

So disagreeing with the concept of likability would seem to be advertising death. But I do disagree — with today’s interpretation. Because here in 2010, the way agencies have decided to make likable advertising creates advertising that consumers hate.

The Beginning of Likability. This concept starts from the simple truth that people want to like the people they buy products from. Since advertising reflects your brand, product, and the people behind it, it makes fundamental sense that likable advertising is more effective than unlikable advertising. Statistical studies confirm this as discussed by Dr. Bryon Sharp in his new book “How Brands Grow”.

Expanding our sense of likability, Dr. Sharp explains that “…the gentle, if complex, emotional reaction of liking increased sales effectiveness of advertising because it encouraged consumers to pay a little more attention.” (p. 204)

Likability Turns Ugly. Unfortunately, from these common sense and statistically proven beginnings, the idea of likability has mutated like the monster rising from the swamp.

The problem starts with agencies and creative teams who make likability their top goal. I’ve watched research teams investigate whether consumers like advertising while ignoring whether consumers find what the ad says to be powerful or meaningful.

Today, the ad business concept of likability goes even further. Far too many agencies seek primarily to create consumer passion about the advertising creative itself and ignore the brand or product.

And, so, our advertising swamp monster has severed its connection with reality in order to focus its energy on creating what portfolio schools/art institutes consider “entertainment”.

Yikes. Advertising needs to be likable so that people retain our messages better. But that means, first and foremost, that we need messages. Only then can you focus on likability (among other also critically important factors).

Then Social Media Blows it Out of Control. I won’t dwell on the absurdities of most corporate sponsored social media. Agencies love this new playground whether it benefits their clients or not. But I will note, as I’ve said before, most consumers don’t want to be your friend. And getting the advertising value from likability doesn’t happen because Facebook ether-friends “like” your brand or product.

Is Modern Advertising Likable? No – Consumers Hate a Lot of It. I’ve spent a lot of time listening to consumers talk about their feelings about advertising. And I’ve spent quite a bit of time digging into quantitative research about what consumers retain from advertising.

Some ads which agencies consider highly creative are truly enjoyed by consumers. More often, consumers struggle to recall the brand and/or product that is being advertised, are turned off by meaningless edginess, rebel at self-satisfied “high art”, and become frustrated that advertisers interrupt their media with meaningless drivel. The problem with modern advertising isn’t that it interrupts us, but that it doesn’t deliver meaning.

Understanding Likability in a Human Way. Let’s consider buying a car. I think it’s obvious that you’re more likely to buy a car from someone you like than from someone you dis-like. But also, most people are unlikely to buy a car from their best friend or someone who is “just like them”. Most people want to buy from someone who has solid knowledge about the type of car they’re considering.

So, no matter how much you may like the salesman, you’ll hesitate to sign a 5 year loan on a $40,000 purchase if the salesman can’t tell you why it’s a good car for your needs or explain the deal on the loan.

This suggests that likability isn’t broadly determined, but must be uniquely considered within the product or brand sphere being advertised.

Question is: Does Your Work Respect Humanity? The next time your agency is talking about likability, sit back on the fringes of the conversation and listen – really listen – to what’s being said.

Hopefully, you’ll discover a very human sense, respectful of the consumer’s true need for the product. Grab this sense and encourage it. Because your advertising can really only become likable when you understand the human needs of your consumers and explain to them the things you offer to meet those needs. And it’s even better when you do this in likable and entertaining ways.

Copyright 2011 – Doug Garnett – All Rights Reserved

Here we are. Just two weeks short of 1 year since I received Flatland. And what finally shows up? Flatland 2.

Have to admit that the full blown wide-eyed amazement has worn off. Because this is “merely” an upgrade and no longer a step into an entirely new world.

Or is it? First, I love it. Faster, Thinner, Better Cover… and those eyes. Pools of pure technological wonder. (Of course, with one on each side it’s a bit hard to get romantic. It’s perhaps like a very thin fish with eyes pointing two directions – only one of which works at a time.)

But let me get back to “better cover”. At the risk of making a positive mountain out of a reaonable molehill, I LOVE this new case, form factor. It’s simply…well…it hurts me to do this…but it is actually kind of magical.

What did I buy? iPad 2 with 3G (AT&T) and 64 GB. Upgraded memory – not because I every came close to using up my 32 on Flatland 1. Rather, I believe in buying the higher end for resale and because software starts expanding to use more memory.

The case came today – one day later. I bought Apple’s red leather version. (Not because of the (Red) connection. I just like the color.)

My initial experience. Absolutely what you want. I took it out of the box & plugged it into my computer. It downloaded new software and restored my entire Flatland world from backup. And, I was off and running. Took about 20 minutes total.

Initial Thoughts. It is great. And here are specifics:

- Internet is clearly faster and stronger. Pages load more quickly, switch more quickly.

- I find less restarting of applications when I re-open them. That means the multi-tasking is working better. May be the result of better iPad 2 design. It might also be an advantage of the 64Gb size. But even Angry Birds, which I’ve rarely had work well under multi-tasking, was staying in its same state when I navigate away and back.

- The camera’s just seem, well, natural. I have an iPhone 4 so they’re not a surprise. But, it’s pretty cool to add. And, these will let me Skype and FaceTime from the road. Very nice.

Did I Mention The Case? For something you handle all the time this is important. Ever notice how many people kept their iPhone 4′s without a case for way too long? That’s because they loved the product and didn’t want to cover it up. Yes, they were risking damage. But I regret that my iPhone 4 has to live in a case.

So, too, with the iPad. For the iPad 1, I bought Apple’s case then started to search. Bought a case that was a portfolio and traveled a bit with it. Not very helpful, made it really bulky, lacked precision for standing it up, and it was a pain to remove my iPad to work in the keyboard dock. Then, I bought a second case – it was so bad I never really tried to use it.

My year with Flatland 1 was spent with Apple’s case. And, it really was superb – no vendor could compete.

This time I decided Apple probably had a great idea. And they do. This one is is outstanding. The screen needs protection and this case protects it. Otherwise, it’s just me and Flatland 2 – the case stays out of the way. And, when it’s rolled for support – it seems stronger than Apples case for the iPad 1.

In other words, I really get to enjoy the slim wonder that is the iPad 2.

Final Words? App Developers are the Tablet Weak Point. My lingering disappointment in Flatland isn’t with Apple. It’s with the App developers.

Fundamentally, App developers are proving to be a pretty thick headed group. The Apps (a) refuse to use the advantages of the pad and/or (b) abuse the screen by wasting it on “white space” when it should be used productively.

- Why is it that Huffingtonpost’s iPad app is worthless? (They’re iPhone app is good.)
- Why can’t WordPress get a good app? One year later, it remains buggy, tricky to use in some cases, and seems to have been left to fall apart on the sidelines.
- Why don’t Apps like CBS Sports, Bloomberg, and many more have indicators to tell you when you’ve selected something? This is a user interface basic! Very fundamental.

I could go on and on. It’s possible that these are Android weaknesses and that these developers are making things for lowest common denominator (Android). The Apps feel like they’ve been build with the hamfisted approach of many PC applications.

If so, they are making a mistake. The apps which really utilize the tablet are the ones that get bought most often – unless you have no choice.

And So… I head into the new world, powered by a more powerful Flatland. The only question is…what adventures lie ahead?

Copyright 2011 – Doug Garnett – All Rights Reserved

Here we are. Just two weeks short of 1 year since I received Flatland. And what finally shows up? Flatland 2.

Have to admit that the full blown wide-eyed amazement has worn off. Because this is “merely” an upgrade and no longer a step into an entirely new world.

Or is it? First, I love it. Faster, Thinner, Better Cover… and those eyes. Pools of pure technological wonder. (Of course, with one on each side it’s a bit hard to get romantic. It’s perhaps like a very thin fish with eyes pointing two directions – only one of which works at a time.)

But let me get back to “better cover”. At the risk of making a positive mountain out of a reaonable molehill, I LOVE this new case, form factor. It’s simply…well…it hurts me to do this…but it is actually kind of magical.

What did I buy? iPad 2 with 3G (AT&T) and 64 GB. Upgraded memory – not because I every came close to using up my 32 on Flatland 1. Rather, I believe in buying the higher end for resale and because software starts expanding to use more memory.

The case came today – one day later. I bought Apple’s red leather version. (Not because of the (Red) connection. I just like the color.)

My initial experience. Absolutely what you want. I took it out of the box & plugged it into my computer. It downloaded new software and restored my entire Flatland world from backup. And, I was off and running. Took about 20 minutes total.

Initial Thoughts. It is great. And here are specifics:

- Internet is clearly faster and stronger. Pages load more quickly, switch more quickly.

- I find less restarting of applications when I re-open them. That means the multi-tasking is working better. May be the result of better iPad 2 design. It might also be an advantage of the 64Gb size. But even Angry Birds, which I’ve rarely had work well under multi-tasking, was staying in its same state when I navigate away and back.

- The camera’s just seem, well, natural. I have an iPhone 4 so they’re not a surprise. But, it’s pretty cool to add. And, these will let me Skype and FaceTime from the road. Very nice.

Did I Mention The Case? For something you handle all the time this is important. Ever notice how many people kept their iPhone 4′s without a case for way too long? That’s because they loved the product and didn’t want to cover it up. Yes, they were risking damage. But I regret that my iPhone 4 has to live in a case.

So, too, with the iPad. For the iPad 1, I bought Apple’s case then started to search. Bought a case that was a portfolio and traveled a bit with it. Not very helpful, made it really bulky, lacked precision for standing it up, and it was a pain to remove my iPad to work in the keyboard dock. Then, I bought a second case – it was so bad I never really tried to use it.

My year with Flatland 1 was spent with Apple’s case. And, it really was superb – no vendor could compete.

This time I decided Apple probably had a great idea. And they do. This one is is outstanding. The screen needs protection and this case protects it. Otherwise, it’s just me and Flatland 2 – the case stays out of the way. And, when it’s rolled for support – it seems stronger than Apples case for the iPad 1.

In other words, I really get to enjoy the slim wonder that is the iPad 2.

Final Words? App Developers are the Tablet Weak Point. My lingering disappointment in Flatland isn’t with Apple. It’s with the App developers.

Fundamentally, App developers are proving to be a pretty thick headed group. The Apps (a) refuse to use the advantages of the pad and/or (b) abuse the screen by wasting it on “white space” when it should be used productively.

- Why is it that Huffingtonpost’s iPad app is worthless? (They’re iPhone app is good.)
- Why can’t WordPress get a good app? One year later, it remains buggy, tricky to use in some cases, and seems to have been left to fall apart on the sidelines.
- Why don’t Apps like CBS Sports, Bloomberg, and many more have indicators to tell you when you’ve selected something? This is a user interface basic! Very fundamental.

I could go on and on. It’s possible that these are Android weaknesses and that these developers are making things for lowest common denominator (Android). The Apps feel like they’ve been build with the hamfisted approach of many PC applications.

If so, they are making a mistake. The apps which really utilize the tablet are the ones that get bought most often – unless you have no choice.

And So… I head into the new world, powered by a more powerful Flatland. The only question is…what adventures lie ahead?

Copyright 2011 – Doug Garnett – All Rights Reserved

Just one year ago I took possession of Flatland, my iPad 3g. And just this week I’ve received Flatland 2 – my new iPad2 (64GB, 3g, black with Red case).

A laptop free year. After getting Flatland, it took a while for it to dawn on me that I had immediately started living Laptop-Free. In fact, in the past year, I carried a laptop only once (when I had to do a Skype presentation from Des Moines to an audience in Czecklosovakia).

This is quite significant. I travel about twice a month on business. And that travel extensively covers the US – from Florida to California to Boston to Oregon and points between. On these trips I leverage the iPad extensively. I create spreadsheets, Word docs, & presentations, show presentations on projectors, play back video, stay in touch, write blog posts, write scripts, review our TV work in progress, and do a whole range of other work. Flatland has been fully sufficient – even much better than my previous laptop.

It’s also interesting that around Portland I never carried a laptop much. But I take my iPad all the time and regularly get things done at the coffee shop, lunch, or waiting at my son’s swimming lesson.

Apple, great job! I might even have to bite the bullet and use the word “magical” (tho’ I despise it’s use in marketing anything but Disneyland).

App Developers? I Sure Hope You Get it Together…and SOON! After my year-long experience, App developer weaknesses are my one lingering disappointment in Flatland.

Seems that App developers must be a pretty thick headed group. The Apps they create (a) refuse to take advantage of the pad’s strengths and/or (b) abuse the screen by wasting it on “white space” that abuses my screen space productivity.

A small handful of examples:

- Why is it that Huffingtonpost’s iPad app is so weak? (I’m not alone. Many other iPad owners complain about it. (It’s weird, because they’re iPhone app is good.)
- Why can’t WordPress get a good app? One year later, it remains buggy, tricky to use in some cases, and seems to have been left to fall apart on the sidelines.
- Why don’t Apps like CBS Sports, Bloomberg, and many more have the most basic interface fundamentals – like indicators to tell you when you’ve selected something? This is a user interface basic!
- There is no single App that does what I need to do with Office documents. There are 3 that each have strengths. But each has a major weakness. And none of them work well with MS/Word tables.

App after App simply doesn’t live up to the potential it SHOULD bring to the iPad. Obvioiusly, I’m getting by quite well. But it remains disappointing that every App I download shows up one or two significant weaknesses in major areas. My guess is that these weaknesses result from a few things.

App developers learned their skills with phones but haven’t grown up to tablets. This is too bad. Survival will require that they figure it out. Phone users are more forgiving – tablet users aren’t at all. With a tablet, size is everything and I want apps that use the screen size to become more effective – not just to show off how cool they can be. That doesn’t mean to avoid white space. It means that if you use white space, use it to deliver a better app – not just meaningless space or cool hype.

Developers Don’t Charge Enough. So many apps are cheap – really cheap. Clearly, they are too cheap to be well crafted. Maybe this is driven by the mythology of the companies who build little gimmicks for no investment then sell millions of them at $1.99 each. But I’m pretty well past those cheesy cheap apps. It’s time for real ones that we pay more to buy. How much? Clearly I’d not hesitate to pay over $20 for the right high quality app.

Android’s strength may lead developers to make apps that are lowest common quality (Android). My students describe Android as “the Windows of mobile operating systems”. And that’s not far off. So I’m guessing at this leads to Android “dumbing down” because the Apps feel like they’ve been built with the same hamfisted approach we find in many PC applications.

Of course, history suggests that developers will probably blame Apple (lack of tools, communication, kickbacks, so forth). So I’m ready for it. But I doubt it (having worked briefly at a developer and watched the developer battles since the early 1990′s). In fact, my first software development project was in 1982. And I’ve watched software progress with tremendous interest since. The mistakes I’m seeing are mistakes of an immature industry.

App Developers Need to Catch Up to Apple. The way I see what Apple has achieved in the past 10 years is that they turned technology quality into consumer quality. Nowhere will consumers put up with the fundamentally poor finished quality that is delivered in electronics – except in electronics because they haven’t had a choice.

But in the iPod, iPhone and iPad, Apple has delivered fully consumerized electronics products. Despite Apple’s figuring this out, the rest of the tech manufacturers really haven’t. They’re still delivering products with the same fundamental messiness that they were delivering in 1995. (The specifics may have changed, but the overall experience remains the same.)

Other than game developers, App Developers haven’t figured it out either. Many of the game developers already consumerized their software – but they had to because their “under 10 year old” audience required it.

Apart from the big games, I wouldn’t say that there are many Apps of exceptional consumer quality. Yes, I can get things done. And, yes, the Apple business apps are the best ones (although they still have some unusual failings).

App developers, help us all out. Set a higher standard for yourselves. Set a standard that your apps have to deliver dramatic value and exceptional satisfaction among the mass audience (and not just the tinkering digi-rati).

And I’ll bet that the first one who does will dominate the world within a very short time. Because those of us who live in our own Flatlands will become your fast friends.

Copyright 2011 – Doug Garnett – All Rights Reserved

I suppose you might read the title of this post and expect an altruistic discussion. Or expect to find ramblings about how account planners should dig into sociological meanings to develop connections with consumers (have you noticed how esoteric account planning has become?).

But I want to discuss something very different — something the ad business seems to forget — effective advertising’s truly human value and the society-wide value this builds.

I turn to this topic today because advertising in 2011 is a pretty cynical business where many agency execs bring in large salaries while resenting anything so low brow as connecting “advertising” with sales. The idea of ever asking a consumer to purchase a product seems crass. In fact, read carefully what agencies say about themselves and you’ll find a serious dis-like of “advertising” in general (usually detected by what’s omitted from their discussion – like any understanding of business).

It’s too bad. Because good advertising is quite fundamentally human and is quite valuable to society.

Consumerism is as old as mankind itself. In fact, consumerism started when the first hunters found they could shop for rock types and find rocks that were more effective. Or when one animal skin was preferred over another for any number of reasons. I think brand also shows up quite early – like when weapon makers repetitively selected specific types of rock (e.g. flint) because they knew it made better weapons. In other words: exercising choice for the things that support us and surround us is a fundamental human activity.

Advertising helps consumers. Through advertising, they find products that enliven and enrich their lives – products they wouldn’t otherwise know about. For bigger decisions, advertising can help consumers choose between brands – more quickly and with more confidence than they could otherwise. For smaller decisions, brand established through advertising reduces their shopping challenge. Consider. A typical trip to the grocery store might involve looking at 500 items to choose 100. Using brand, we reduce those choices dramatically and make our lives more manageable.

Advertising creates jobs. We rely on the consumer economy to drive jobs. But if consumers don’t know a product exists, don’t know what advantages it brings them, or don’t know the ways it out-performs the competition, then they aren’t likely to buy that product. So strong advertising campaigns create strong companies – which means jobs at all levels of the company, jobs at retail, and jobs in all the suppliers who help manufacture the products.

Advertising creates economic stability. When companies have a potent method for driving their sales engine, then those companies become more stable. And stable companies create stable economies. Yes, technology enthusiasts spend a lot of time today preaching something like “chaos is good”. I disagree. Chaos happens. Out of chaos, good can come. But, economically we need long periods of stability while brief episodes of chaos reveal new things and keep us from becoming complacent. Advertising is critical to creating that stability.

Advertising lifts marketing out of the nasty, ugly world of the Dollar Store. Consider the Dollar Store. Without advertising, all retail would decay to the level of the dollar store – where every brand & product is manufactured solely to reduce cost. Is that what consumers want? Not at all. Is that what manufacturers want? Not at all. Advertising is one of the key economic factors that keep companies from ending up in the sinkhole of discounts.

What stands in the way of getting these benefits? Mostly, the advertising business. Let me mention a couple of ways the ad business is its own worst enemy.

First, consider the issue of “consumer interruption”. Ad agencies make a big deal about the idea that advertising interrupts consumers – then tell us they just care about consumers. That’s funny. Because the facts suggest that consumers don’t really care passionately about this topic. Ad effectiveness has increased in TV since DVR’s appeared (so obviously they’re not “skipping all ads”). And while newspapers are struggling to get ad dollars, that’s not because readers are revolting against advertising – they’re shifting to get similar content for free over the internet. And print is in a similar situation.

So why does the advertising biz talk so much about interruptions? Because it pays to. Truth is that ad agencies stand to make millions from offering dramatic changes in advertising – whether consumers want them or not (remember that agencies aren’t usually held to a sales goal anyway so what does it matter?). And new media entrepreneurs and venture investors stand to make billions if these agencies can convince clients to abandon old media and put their money in new.

Let’s look at another issue. For fun sometime, hang around an agency creative meeting then point to an idea and say “but that won’t sell anything”. Watch the fireworks as the creative team insists that selling isn’t their job and they refuse to work on any campaign where sales are measured.

Truth is that the ad business has become exceptionally skilled at convincing clients not to expect results from their work. In fact, as J-schools, then art schools & portfolio schools, and, now, agency schools have come to dominate advertising training, advertising has turned from commercial endeavor into a curated art exhibit. As a result, meaningful consumer messages have become nearly non-existent. That bugs consumers. If they are asked to put up with advertising, they’d rather have the ads be useful.

The Problem Isn’t Advertising Interruption, But Advertising That Delivers No Meaning. What advertisers need to focus on is useful consumer meaning: Why should a consumer buy this product? What is exciting, but hidden? What does it bring to a consumer life? What context shows the product value? What makes it better than the competition? What important truth wouldn’t someone learn at the store?

Why these kinds of truth? Because when you deliver meaning well you also deliver the full range of advertising’s human value.

Copyright 2010 – Doug Garnett – All Rights Reserved

There are a lot of people running around right now with utopian theories of advertising that suggest it’s most effective when it doesn’t ask consumers to do anything.These theories are especially prominent in social media circles.

In reality, this is really just the further development of creative trends that started in the 1980s – trends that outlived the big hair. The result of those trends is an advertising business in 2011 that is pretty cynical. Many agency execs bring in large salaries while resenting anything so low brow as the idea their work needs to “sell”. The idea of asking a consumer to purchase a product seems crass (so it doesn’t happen). And there seems to be, among agency execs, a serious dis-like of the real business purpose of “advertising” (which you can detect by what’s omitted from their discussion – like any understanding of business).

What they’re really saying is “advertising is most effective when it’s least effective.” Right. (Oops. I forgot that every advertising sin is excused by the agency with the idea that it will at least build brand. And when will that brand turn into cash for the company? It has to at some point.)

Sadly, this trend’s added influence due to new media is quite dangerous. Because highly effective advertising is fundamentally very human and is fundamentally quite valuable to our social fabric.

Consumerism is as old as mankind itself. In fact, consumerism started when the first hunters found they could shop for rock types and find rocks that were more effective. Or when one animal skin was preferred over another for any number of reasons. I think brand also shows up quite early – like when weapon makers repetitively selected specific types of rock (e.g. flint) because they knew it made better weapons. In other words: exercising choice for the things that support us and surround us is a fundamental human activity.

Advertising helps consumers. Through advertising, they find products that enliven and enrich their lives – products they wouldn’t otherwise know about. For bigger decisions, advertising can help consumers choose between brands – more quickly and with more confidence than they could otherwise. For smaller decisions, brand established through advertising reduces their shopping challenge. Consider. A typical trip to the grocery store might involve looking at 500 items to choose 100. Using brand, we reduce those choices dramatically and make our lives more manageable.

Advertising creates jobs. We rely on the consumer economy to drive jobs. But if consumers don’t know a product exists, don’t know what advantages it brings them, or don’t know the ways it out-performs the competition, then they aren’t likely to buy that product. So strong advertising campaigns create strong companies – which means jobs at all levels of the company, jobs at retail, and jobs in all the suppliers who help manufacture the products.

Advertising creates economic stability. When companies have a potent method for driving their sales engine, then those companies become more stable. And stable companies create stable economies. Yes, technology enthusiasts spend a lot of time today preaching something like “chaos is good”. I disagree. Chaos happens. Out of chaos, good can come. But, economically we need long periods of stability while brief episodes of chaos reveal new things and keep us from becoming complacent. Advertising is critical to creating that stability.

Advertising lifts marketing out of the nasty, ugly world of the Dollar Store. Consider the Dollar Store. Without advertising, all retail would decay to the level of the dollar store – where every brand & product is manufactured solely to reduce cost. Is that what consumers want? Not at all. Is that what manufacturers want? Not at all. Advertising is one of the key economic factors that keep companies from ending up in the sinkhole of discounts.

What stands in the way of getting these benefits? Mostly, the advertising business. Let me mention a couple of ways the ad business is its own worst enemy.

First, consider the issue of “consumer interruption”. Ad agencies make a big deal about the idea that advertising interrupts consumers – then tell us they just care about consumers. That’s funny. Because the facts suggest that consumers don’t really care passionately about this topic. Ad effectiveness has increased in TV since DVR’s appeared (so obviously they’re not “skipping all ads”). And while newspapers are struggling to get ad dollars, that’s not because readers are revolting against advertising – they’re shifting to get similar content for free over the internet. And print is in a similar situation.

So why does the advertising biz talk so much about interruptions? Because it pays to. Truth is that ad agencies stand to make millions from offering dramatic changes in advertising – whether consumers want them or not (remember that agencies aren’t usually held to a sales goal anyway so what does it matter?). And new media entrepreneurs and venture investors stand to make billions if these agencies can convince clients to abandon old media and put their money in new.

Let’s look at another issue. For fun sometime, hang around an agency creative meeting then point to an idea and say “but that won’t sell anything”. Watch the fireworks as the creative team insists that selling isn’t their job and they refuse to work on any campaign where sales are measured.

Truth is that the ad business has become exceptionally skilled at convincing clients not to expect results from their work. In fact, as J-schools, then art schools & portfolio schools, and, now, agency schools have come to dominate advertising training, advertising has turned from commercial endeavor into a curated art exhibit. As a result, meaningful consumer messages have become nearly non-existent. That bugs consumers. If they are asked to put up with advertising, they’d rather have the ads be useful.

The Problem Isn’t Advertising Interruption, But Advertising That Delivers No Meaning. What advertisers need to focus on is useful consumer meaning: Why should a consumer buy this product? What is exciting, but hidden? What does it bring to a consumer life? What context shows the product value? What makes it better than the competition? What important truth wouldn’t someone learn at the store?

Why these kinds of truth? Because when you deliver meaning well you also deliver the full range of advertising’s human value.

Copyright 2010 – Doug Garnett – All Rights Reserved

I wrote recently about the advertising business’s mis-understanding of the idea of “likability”. I think we have a similar problem with the idea of “entertainment”.

Listen to many agencies and you’ll think that the only things that entertain are movies, concerts, comedy shows, and video games. That’s quite scary because movies, concerts, comedy shows, and video games FAIL TO ENTERTAIN far more than they succeed.

So the good news for the ad business is that people are more interesting than Hollywood thinks.

Does Advertising Need to Be Entertaining? Of course it does. But agencies need to stop looking at what’s called the “entertainment business” and start looking for a more robustly human sense of entertainment.

There are many things that people find entertaining – learning things, training pets, browsing the web, reading a book, watching a documentary, playing poker, shooting the breeze with friends, working out, running, hiking, fishing, sewing, woodworking, fixing stuff, writing blogs, …. The list is endless and varied. Heck, there are people who think it’s entertaining to lock themselves into a tiny capsule tied to a balloon then risk their lives floating around the world 10 miles above the earth (this one doesn’t make my list).

To see this wide ranging sense of entertainment consider infomercials (yup – the 30 minute type). Infomercials work because it is inherently entertaining for people to learn about products they buy for areas where they are passionate. What do they learn? How products work, what other people think about them, how they might apply to their lives. Because of this, the infomercial business is extraordinarily successful and has nearly universal influence (every TV viewer is influenced by them even if they don’t call to buy).

Intelligent infomercials succeed – like our half hour for the Drill Doctor drill bit sharpener which spent 30 minutes talking about drill bits and drove sales of 3 million units. Entertaining? You bet. This show received 1 ratings (not share) in local markets on early weekend mornings. Why? Because it’s entertaining to learn about tools.

Sadly, some infomercial practitioners insult viewer intelligence by using the same techniques on TV that they use on the Atlantic boardwalk. But infomercials aren’t the worst…

The Worst Insulters of Consumer Intelligence are Traditional Advertisers. Advertising agencies insult consumer intelligence constantly by assuming that (1) consumers don’t want to know anything or (2) saying something significant makes creative “boring” or (3) saying something directly is offensive. Consumers really want all of this – it’s the agencies who don’t.

In part, I find many agencies believe they are honoring consumer intelligence by keeping meaningful content OUT OF their work. Instead, the creative approach is “highly intelligent”. Except… Consumers aren’t artists and creative intelligence is primarily lost on the vast majority of people. There is only one truly universal thing that consumers DO care about: making smart purchase decisions with their limited resources.

The Agency Selection Process Helps Cause This Reality. When shopping agencies, clients view advertising in a portfolio or on a reel as if they were a theater audience. That means entertainment industry-style values play a huge role in agency selection.

But, consumers catch advertising as part of their everyday lives. Caught from the corner of their eye while cooking, glanced at while paging through a magazine with the TV on, or briefly considered while their 2 year-old pulls on their hair. If advertising is to be valuable to them, then, they need it to say something clear and direct that makes pretty immediate sense.

And notice what happens: Theatrical impact requires the creative cleverness to avoid saying things clearly, directly, and in ways that make immediate sense. Consumer impact usually requires clear and direct communication. It takes a brave agency to create advertising that moves consumers – because in so doing they are risking their ability to get that next job.

The Result: A One Dimensional Theory of Entertainment. Heart pumping, eye-catching, sexy, funny, outrageous – these are the terms agencies like to apply to their advertising. But how restrictive of the human animal. Yes, I know PT Barnum talks about how easy it is to foist things on the public. Perhaps that only matters when your primary product is Barnum’s taxidermically altered animalia shown at the county fair.

Fortunately, most advertising doesn’t involve that kind of junk. So why don’t we sell it intelligently – to the whole person, to the entirety of the human beast?

Respect Consumers As Fully Human, Fully Alive. Do this by telling them the things that have meaning to them. And tell them these things in ways that are understandable. Respecting consumers makes your advertising watched more often and successful more often.

Speaking of success, let’s revisit that “entertainment industry” model. The ad biz’s fascination with entertainment considers only the exciting potential while ignoring the dark side. In the entertainment business, failure happens at a massive rate.

Love that sitcom? They spent 5 years developing it and 100 others failed to be effective along the way. Can you spend 5 years developing your ad campaign and risk failing 99 out of 100 times?

Didn’t think you could. The really beautiful thing about considering the entire human animal: you can create advertising that is successful almost every time. But only after you reject the one dimensional view of how your advertising should entertain humanity.

Copyright 2011 – Doug Garnett – All Rights Reserved