HEAD BLOG

You sit down of an evening and watch TV. What else are you doing? Are you talking to friends on the phone? Are you on the Internet? Are you accessing the TV guide to see what’s on next or whether there is anything better on another side?

You sit down at your computer. Now what are you doing? Most likely it is the task you sat down to complete. You will be reading the news, shopping, chatting to friends or catching up on a programme through an online on demand service.

Both scenarios represent something of a dilemma to advertisers. Both tell us that our relationship with advertising has to change.

The power of TV advertising still holds sway over our purchasing habits. At least they do when we are watching the ads. But how often is that when shows are subject to Sky+ or distractions from other, living room based, technology.

Advertisers know this of course. It’s one of the reasons we see increasing amounts of non-traditional advertising be it through sponsorships, idents or product placements.

As technology enables us to set our own TV schedules and access entertainment in different ways, this becomes even more of an issue.

Then there is the computer.

Whatever that means these days.

Whether it is through a terminal in the corner of a room, a laptop or tablet perched on the arm of the sofa or via a mobile phone, it’s really the Internet we are talking about.

And there our consumption behaviour changes. We are either more focussed or certainly less amenable to advertising than we would be in our old, goggle-eyes days. We see the banners flashing in the frame of article and might, just might, take note.

But not in the same ways we would with a TV ad.

Advertisers might want to count the click throughs because the technology allows but we probably have other ideas.

We are on this page for a reason, remember.

Our relationship with advertising has to change.

Instead of seeing us as willing followers, eager to watch the next ad or cluck through to the micro-site where we can can “swish” our hair for some marketing person’s vain hope of building a community, advertisers need to understand the key changes in our viewing habits.

They, we, need to understand that the relationship needs to become more equal, more give and take and account for the fact that whilst we understand the need to be alerted to new products, we would like the method to change.

We would like to be informed rather than told about products; given reasons to purchase rather than slapped in the face and told to pay attention to advertising that has no message.

Advertising must seek to build a rapport with us and it must do this by engaging, not intruding. New technology demands advertisers take a new approach. Rather than deafen us with ever-increasing volume, they must work harder to let us hear the message they contain.

Our relationship with advertising has changed.

Advertising, by and large, is afraid to engage. Consumers, on the other hand, are not.

Recently Head First was invited to contribute to a discussion regarding art in advertising. Among our observations was a statement that advertising rarely innovated and so rarely became art.

And I figure that if advertising doesn’t innovate then there must be a reason.

Consider the rise in ‘crowd sourcing‘. Ideas are emanating from people. Ordinary, non-industry people.

Consider also recent reports of big companies plagiarising ideas from sole traders and designers. These designers are acting on a small scale, pleasing a small number of people. They have no brand to protect, no image to damage. They are unencumbered by procedure or responsibility. Like artists and like ordinary crowd-sourced creatives, the people who create do so in the hope that others will respond to the creation in a positive manner. If they are creating funny videos then there is little or no concern for an audience. When the need to sell is removed from the process, creativity takes on a raw beauty that has great power.

We, as viewers commonly branded as consumers, see this power as honest in scope. As clever, as entertaining as we can be as professional creatives, can we ever hope to reach this level? Can we, in other words, set out to create with sales or even brand propagation as an afterthought?

With FMCG the answer might seem to be a resounding no. Even those peculiar products which don’t quite fit the FMCG model (games and books fall under this banner, at least to my mind), can’t afford to release marketing without some kind of sales message directing it somehow. Books, it has been observed, are having to step up their marketing activities and in doing so may be forced even further from simply presenting their author’s vision and letting it settle naturally into the hands of the reader.

The need to inform can override the desire to entertain. But it is the entertainment value of any good ad that does the engaging.

We are, I believe, entering a phase of advertising where this process, this collision even, are being blurred. Games which technically are adverts throw off their need to inform, or reduce it to a bare minimum. They seek to entertain by not letting the brand get in the way. Good, crowd-sourced ads seem to work because suddenly the agency creative isn’t having to steer a course through briefs and personalities in order that their idea get greenlit and as the more savvy brands cone to understand this we are seeing some engaging creative content being released through any and every means at our disposal.