Welcome to the Partisan Advertising blog.
The Partisan Advertising blog has advertising agency-related posts dating back to 2010 covering a vast array of topics.
New Zealand’s road death toll
It's quite possible since some advertising agencies don't focus purely on saving lives.
America has a gun problem, but New Zealand has a road problem. In 2017, 380 people died on New Zealand’s roads. That’s up from 327 in 2016 and up by almost 50% since 2013 (253 deaths).
The only reason to advertise is to generate a result. I’ll be the first to say that this is often difficult to measure. There are numerous factors at play in every case, from the environment to competitor activity to consumer apathy. But regardless, you’ll be hard-pressed to find any advertiser saying they don’t care about the outcome of a campaign. Money is spent on advertising to generate results, and for the vast majority of businesses, this takes the form of a financial benefit. But sometimes, the benefit is far more important than money.
And that’s where the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) comes in. The NZTA website states that it spends $13 million per year on advertising and that this bolsters the funding of $300 million spent on police strategic enforcement.
With their $13 million budget, the NZTA uses advertising to “raise driver awareness of road safety issues and change unsafe driver behaviour”. The NZTA also states “…while an advertising campaign can affect public awareness and attitudes and influence behaviour change, advertising alone does not result in reduced crashes, deaths or serious injuries – it has never claimed to”. That’s a terrible viewpoint.
Advertising is one of the most powerful influencers of modern times. Remember when monolithic international advertising agencies got people to smoke cigarettes? These advertising agencies literally got people to kill themselves! Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that advertising could save lives instead?
All the NZTA’s attitude does is breed apathy, and apathy skews priorities. Let’s not forget that the end goal here is to save lives. Nothing else matters. Or is there something else more important?
Consider this:
In 2014, New Zealand advertising agency Clemenger BBDO, the NZTA’s advertising agency of choice, won three Gold Lions, two Silvers, and a Bronze award at the Cannes Lions. Clemenger BBDO also won 21 awards at the New York Festival and One Show International Awards, and a Gold in the Australian Gold Awards. Clemenger BBDO also won a number of local ad awards including Gold at the Beacon Awards, plus the Ad of the Year, one Grand Prix, four Golds and three Bronzes at the Axis Awards. That’s 38 awards in total.
In 2014, 293 people died on our roads. Effectively, Clemenger BBDO won just over one advertising award for every seven people that died.
The Clemenger BBDO website claims that “Everybody at Clemenger BBDO has the same job; to do the work we do better. Better means more interesting, more creative, and more effective”. Creativity is a sliding scale and in the world of advertising, it often means your peers judge how creative you are. But effectiveness can be measured by everyone involved, including you and me. Was Clemenger BBDO’s 2014 advertising campaign for the NZTA effective? No, it wasn’t, and there hasn't been an effective campaign since then and the numbers prove it.
Lowering our death toll isn’t all about creativity nor does it necessarily require it. Clemenger BBDO is in a very privileged position to work with the NZTA. I know lowering the death toll is a difficult task but Clemenger BBDO has hordes of resources, links to their international partners, and some serious manpower. So what's the problem? It's important to note at this point that Clemenger BBDO's history shows a few tobacco companies on their client list. Big companies like Lucky Strike feature. If Clemenger BBDO could work magic with tobacco why can't they work magic on our roads?
Let’s look at the biggest statistic again: an increase in the death toll by 50% over five years. Would Clemenger BBDO’s other clients, such as Fonterra, DB Breweries, and New World, accept a 50% drop in sales over a five-year period? Regardless of the reasons why it happened, BBDO would be out on their arse.
So what’s the solution?
The NZTA bans all road safety campaigns from being entered into advertising awards.
The NZTA stops using agencies and moves everything in-house. I can hear your groans of dissent from here but it could work.
Make a $13 million movie. Taika Waititi to direct for an affordable fee since it's his social responsibility. Let’s imagine it would pull in $150 million. What could be done with those profits to stop the carnage?
Place 380 white crosses outside the offices of Clemenger BBDO. Perhaps if their creatives were reminded every day that creativity and awards didn’t matter, they might change their approach to saving lives.
Those are my ideas, let’s hear yours.
One of the ads that contributed to Clemenger BBDO's awards haul.
Does Product Placement Work?
Does product placement work? The short answer is no. The long answer is maybe. Everyone does it but just because everyone's doing it doesn't mean it's effective. Let's take a look at some recent examples of this advertising technique.
We live in a time where TV shows and movies can be watched on demand. Installing ad blockers has become a priority, and fingers itch to press “skip ad” as quickly as possible. While traditional advertising still exists in this digital age, advertisers always find their way to shove their brands and products into people’s minds.
One way that’s been tried, tested and overused is through the magic (and by magic we mean paying the big bucks) of product placement. Let’s look at some movie product placements from the slightly obvious ones to the ultimate smack-bang-in-your-face-please-make-it-stop product placements.
Slightly subtle product placement.
Jurassic World – Starbucks
Good on you, Starbucks! Sort of. It’s only during this final battle scene when you can see ye olde Starbucks logo with its mermaid oh so many times. To be fair, there are also other brands in the mix like Pandora and Brookstone but coffee comes first every time, right?
Kingsman: Secret Service – McDonald’s
You’d think they’d be served food for the gods because of who these characters are supposed to be but what do you know, it’s Maccas!
Justice League – Mercedes
Batman’s superpowers are finally revealed! “I’m rich." And since he's rich, he drives a Mercedes. Why don’t you?
Well that was a bit of a stretch.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles – Pizza Hut
Ahhh yes. Turtles who eat pizza. As long as it was given a purpose in the beginning of the film, right? But hey, there’s no hate whatsoever here. Everyone should be able to eat pizza freely!
iRobot – Converse All-Stars
For a movie whose setting is in the year 2035, Converse’s placement definitely stood out. “Converse All Stars, vintage 2004.” Well played, Converse. Well played.
Get off my face please.
The Internship – Google
Need I say more? The entire movie was a two-hour long commercial for Google. I’m guessing Google was feeling lucky with this one.
You just had to, didn’t you?
Too Many to Mention – Coca Cola
Hi Coca-Cola. We all know you. Most if not all of us know how bad you are for us. But you’re damn good at branding. So the question now is, do you actually need all these product placements?
We have a winner! The Ultimate Product Placement Whore: Michael Bay
Michael Bay films – 555 Product Placements in total.
We’re not the only ones who've noticed. We see right through you Michael Bay! Not sure if that deserves a pat on the back or a plea to get on with the storylines.
At the end of it all, advertisers think we all exist to consume their messages. They will always advertise by any means necessary – even if it costs a minimum of 250,000 USD for a second’s worth of screen time.
Try as you might, you can’t just ad block your way through life.
How to measure advertising?
How do you measure advertising? Rainbow Youth recently launched their "if it's not gay, it's not gay" national ad campaign. How will it's success be measured?
There is a rather insidious belief out there that advertising can change the way we think. I say insidious because I think that belief is promulgated largely by the advertising industry itself.
The proof lies in many places but let’s look at drink-driving as an example. When it comes to advertising, the NZ Transport Agency has incredibly deep pockets and they produce heaps of advertising. They have a plethora of leading advertising agencies working for them but people are still dying on our roads, with 2017 being one of the worst.
Advertising campaigns for this subject have merely tapped into existing latent beliefs that drink-driving is fundamentally wrong. But a lot of people don't care and advertising won't change the way they think. This is true of smoking, hunting, global warming, gun control, social welfare, shark finning, recycling, whaling, drug abuse, animal welfare, veganism, and homophobia.
Which brings us to this advertisement for Rainbow Youth. Have you seen it?
It’s saying that the use of the word gay (in a LGBTIQ context) is still too often used in a derogatory sense and we need to change the way we think of it and the way we use it.
Well, society has already done the first: the word gay has long since lost its original meaning. Gay will remain a description, a slight and a celebration. Like the LGBTIQ community that embraced it, it is stronger for its diversity.
Rainbow Youth has stated on their Facebook page that the derogatory use of gay “contributes to much larger issues - homophobia, biphobia and transphobia”. In essence, Rainbow Youth has said that the derogatory use of the word gay is a gateway to hatred. But somewhere in New Zealand, someone disagrees, and changing their view, especially through advertising, is an immense challenge.
Setting aside the approach taken by Rainbow Youth’s advert, one must ask how its success will be measured? It’s likely that there is no baseline measurement for how often the word gay is used in an offensive manner, so there’ll likely be no comparison at the completion of the campaign to measure its effectiveness in reducing homophobia.
Yes, there was a lot of national and global media coverage and the ad was viewed a million times on Rainbow Youth’s Facebook page, but is it creating meaningful change or is it merely preaching to the converted? Does anyone really know?
Research Now, an online market research company, surveyed 2,715 global marketers in June 2017 to examine how they measured the effectiveness of their campaigns. Their research stated that "The outcome of a campaign isn’t going to mean anything if it wasn’t set up correctly in the first place". Honestly, you don't need a research company to tell you this. I read through their full report and it's no surprise that an increase in sales rated as most important for the measurement of advertising. Measurement is easier (slightly) when you're measuring how many burgers or sneakers you sell in a month but when you're trying to change the way people think, it's a lot harder.
Surely Rainbow Youth, as a representative of the LGBTIQ community, deserve to be able to move forward with more effective advertising in the future by being able to analyse, understand, and adjust their campaigns based on what has been done before? Don’t say it can’t be done because the LGBTIQ community have overcome tougher challenges.
Advertising on TV - a quick heads-up
No one watches any advertising on TV. So why are advertising agencies in Auckland still flogging this dead horse? Because the move away from TV hasn't happened here... yet.
Maybe the title of this post should be “Just a Quick Heads-Down About TV”? I’ve written about the subject of multi-screening before on this site but it’s time to revisit the subject, mainly because I’ve been revisiting the subjects of my ongoing social experiment.
I’ve been living out of a suitcase since July 2014, travelling the world with a lady from Seattle and living the digital nomad lifestyle. We generally rent a place for the duration of our stay in a specific city but we’ve also spent a fair amount of time staying with our families and friends. It’s the best way to actually spend some quality time with them, so for days, weeks and even months, I’ve been able to be the observer in a variety of households in different countries and in wildly different cultural and even economic circumstances.
The one thing they all have in common? No one, and I do seriously mean no one, watches any advertising on TV. Full stop, end of story. This is where this post could finish.
But I’ll continue for a while…
If there’s the ability to skip ads, then the ads are duly skipped, in exactly the same way they are when you’re waiting for that YouTube video to load with your pointer poised over the “Skip Ad” button and watching the countdown like a hawk.
If the ads can’t be skipped, while watching high-profile live sporting events for example, then the channel is either changed, or a second screen is brought into the mix. Channel switching during the ads is becoming less of a thing in an age where everyone has a smartphone or tablet with them while they’re watching.
It’s quite a strange sight to see a group of people from multiple generations sitting around a TV set with their heads resolutely turned down and their eyes locked on the screen of their device. Some idly scroll through their social media feeds, others watch videos, while some play Candy Crush or whatever the latest trendy game is. Often the TV volume is muted so they don’t have to listen to the high-volume yammering of the ads.
Regardless of what they’re “watching”, they’re not watching the ads. Is this a scientifically verifiable study? Obviously not, but it seems to be the case wherever I go, and for whoever I ask. So why are advertisers “going back to TV”?
They must be measuring the results and are totally happy with the bang for bucks they’re getting from the TV component of their campaigns, right? Or are they just stuck?
When it comes to advertising, no one seems to have the definitive answer just yet. Social isn’t the universal panacea it was meant to be, and “making things go viral” is about as reliable as the American democratic process. Print is dying, dead or surging depending on who you ask, and buying online banner ads can be much the same as throwing your money out the window and hoping someone throws money back in.
So in that cold and inhospitable environment, is it any wonder that advertisers are turning to comfort food aka television advertising? When you just don’t know what to do, you do what you always did. At least you won’t lose your job.
Then again, things can be done differently. Case in point, I look at what my brother – the bossman of this agency – did for a client recently.
After a massive overhaul of the brand based on a deep and insightful look at the market, with some clever thinking applied, the client is hundreds of millions of dollars ahead of last year. Not slightly ahead, not doing okay, they’re absolutely killing it. Why? Because they went back to the real basics. Knowing their strengths and weaknesses, understanding their market and then treating the customer with the respect they deserve while communicating the right messages as effectively and as innovatively as possible.
That’s what works. Another million bucks spent on TV pushing the same old, same old won’t put you hundreds of percent ahead of last year. Hell, you’ll be lucky if you don’t go backwards trying to communicate with people who aren’t even watching your expensive ads. Think about it...
New Zealand's worst TV commercial of 2017.
The new NZTA Legend Ad - New Zealand's worst TV commercial of 2017. This is advertising that is badly thought through and terribly executed. A shambles of misguided intent that misses the point by miles and, more than likely, further fuels apathy to drinking and driving.
Badly thought through. Terribly executed. A shambles of misguided intent that misses the point by miles and, more than likely, further fuels apathy toward drinking and driving.
Advertising a social responsibility message such as driving drunk is a fairly tricky thing. In this instance you're asking for more than a behaviour change, you're asking people to change their entire outlook on life, the universe, and everything else, based purely on the premise that you offer a better alternative. Consider this: it may only take a few seconds to roll on a condom but it takes far longer to get across the idea of using the condom in the first place. One look at the number of billboards on K-Road reminding homosexual males to use condoms is a clear example (which begs another question: why are those condom billboards only targeting the gay population of Auckland? Seems heterophobic). When advertising social responsibility you need to create an understanding of why the proposed new way of thinking is far better than the current status quo, and you need to explain it to a majority of people set in their ways. This is where NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) has absolutely failed.
The premise of NZTA's newest "Legend" television commercial is simple: make the responsible decision and don't drink and drive. NZTA's rationale for the ad is that their target market (rural-based males, aged 20 - 29) feel complacent to the dangers of driving drunk and are willing to chance it because the odds of something untoward happening are incredibly remote. The NZTA says that these rural boys drink a lot because it's "commonplace, habitual and acceptable". Since there's no Uber in the middle of the rural wonderland they live in, they need their cars to get around. "Ultimately we want these young guys to stop getting behind the wheel drunk, where they can harm themselves and others."
Sounds great but it's at this point where the NZTA's newest execution implodes.
Everything that the NZTA's new "Legend" does in the advertisement is a complete mockery of safety and responsibility. The lifestyle that he is seen reflecting on during the advertisement is grossly self-serving, fuelled by a callous disregard for self-preservation, and packed full of a terrible type of loneliness and boredom that can only be broken using excessive effort. Add to this ample lashings of immense barbarity, temptation, and lust, and you've got a classic caricature of someone who doesn't give a damn. It's also a clearly logical conclusion, based on the NZTA's rationale, that everything we see their "Legend" reminiscing on was done while under the influence of alcohol. There are even scenes in the advert where alcohol is clearly featured. This leads me to this conclusion: the NZTA only cares about alcohol when related to driving but not when it's related to the other rural activities their "Legend" partakes in.
Based on his behaviour, their "Legend" is highly unlikely to stop drinking and driving. His entire life is a stereotypical middle finger to common sense. Would rural males in NZTA's demographic be positively influenced by this commercial, or would they merely increase their alcohol consumption in a unified f^^k you to the establishment? This commercial goes too far in asking its viewers to suspend their disbelief and it can only be counted as badly executed and a very costly waste of money.
The NZTA's new "Legend" will be unable to change the booze-fueled status quo that is running rampant among rural males, aged 20 - 29.
To the rest of us not living in the wilds of Eketahuna, the NZTA have created nothing but a loathsome, hideous brute. If you don't believe me, please take a look at the synopsis below.
Partisan Advertising celebrates in 2017.
Auckland's most persuasive advertising agency has had a very fruitful 2017. We're proud and privileged to be working with our amazing long-term clients and we're excited to welcome on board some new brands.
2017 is turning out to be a fruitful year for Partisan Advertising. We're proud and privileged to be working with our amazing long-term clients and we're excited to welcome on board some new companies.
TR Group
We have built a close relationship with TR Group, the country’s largest truck leasing and rental company. Since our first TR Group job way back in October 2014, we've been tasked by the TR team with doing another 459 projects. This year we've worked on some really cool briefs, including the interior design of the company's new gym, the company's 25th-anniversary celebrations, and some cool social media work which saw TR's Facebook likes jump past 5,000 at the end of July. Our relationship with TR Group has strengthened through the years and they're without doubt some of the most dedicated people we've ever worked with. Where many people only see a lump of steel driving on the motorway, the TR team see beauty and precision. It's an honour to help them bring their passion to life.
Bathroom Direct
Partisan Advertising has been working with Bathroom Direct since November 2011. We've worked with Brent Coutts, the company's General Manager, and his renovation team, on over 100 advertising projects since then.
Steam Stopper
We've always enjoyed working with the Steam Stopper brand, mostly because it's a challenger brand. The brief from our client this year was simple: "Get under our competitor's skin, irritate them, and grab their customers." Mission accomplished.
AMP Capital - Botany Town Centre
We warmly welcome AMP Capital and Botany Town Centre to the world of Partisan Advertising. We've been given the chance to work in a fantastic and unique retail environment, and best of all, Botany Town Centre is five minutes down the road from our offices and it's packed with all the things we love best: pints of Guinness, award winning pies, and frozen Cokes. What more could you ask for?
Hobson’s Pledge
Before you lose your mind, it's not racist to want all races to be treated as equals. If you disagree, just go and read up on Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King Jnr. If you still disagree, then you're most likely a racist. But let's hope not. The uniqueness of Hobson's Pledge is that they do not have a tangible product or service to offer, nor are they a political party promising all manner of unattainable things to voters purely to stay in power. They're a political movement looking to change the status quo. Partisan Advertising have been tasked with pushing forward a powerful message. The Hobson’s Pledge campaign was totally successful in that the source of much of what they opposed has gone. The Key-led National Party is no longer in power, Christopher Finlayson is no longer Treaty Negotiations Minister, and the Maori Party is out of Parliament. However, the new political landscape hasn't changed much and Hobson's Pledge are continuing to do what they do.
Parkland
The latest addition to our portfolio is Parkland and its group of brands. Another amazing niche business with a range of specialist products, from $15,000 ride-on lawn mowers to $400,000 earth drills. If you've been to Eden Park in the last few years you'll see just how perfect their mowers and irrigation systems have worked on the stadium's field.
Structure Design
Structure Design is an Auckland based engineering firm who gave Partisan Advertising a very unique brief: "showcase our company values through illustrations". Partisan's head of design, Soo Park, took on the project and created a series of illustrations based on fables and fairy tales.
Total Property Worx
Through persistence and hard work, Total Property Worx has grown from a company started by two hard working and determined tradies, to a power house of over fifty industrious individuals.
To all our clients, thank you for trusting Partisan Advertising. Together we can change the status quo.
The psychology of advertising
I was recently at Sky City in Auckland. After dinner, a quest for ice cream saw my friends and me taking a shortcut through the casino.
As we walked past the slot machines, I recalled something I had read in one of my favourite books, American Gods, written by Neil Gaiman:
“Entering the casino one is beset at every side by invitation – invitations such that it would take a man of stone, heartless, mindless, and curiously devoid of avarice, to decline them.
Listen: a machine gun rattle of silver coins as they tumble and spurt down into a slot machine tray and overflow onto monogrammed carpets is replaced by the siren clangour of the slots, the jangling, bippeting chorus swallowed by the huge room, muted to a comforting background chatter by the time one reaches the card tables, the distant sounds only loud enough to keep the adrenaline flowing through the gamblers’ veins.
There is a secret that the casinos possess, a secret they hold and guard and prize, the holiest of their mysteries. For most people do not gamble to win money, after all, although that is what is advertised, sold, claimed and dreamed. But that is merely the easy lie that allows the gamblers to lie to themselves, the big lie that gets them through the enormous, ever-open, welcoming doors.
The secret is this: people gamble to lose money. They come to casinos for the moment in which they feel alive, to ride the spinning wheel and turn with the cards and lose themselves, with the coins, in the slots. They want to know they matter. They brag about the nights they won, the money they took from the casino, but they treasure, secretly treasure, the times they lost. It’s a sacrifice, of sorts.”
The truth is that advertising is, and always has been, a gamble. I’m sure you’ve heard this one before: “Half of my advertising budget is wasted, I just don’t know which half”. This, the most famous, and possibly the oldest, of all advertising quotes, is nothing but a symbol of how terribly hopeless the world of advertising is. But I guess in terms of gambling, a fifty-fifty chance of succeeding is better than most odds in any casino. The way the casinos beguile their victims with colour, noise, and scent, is exactly the same approach that advertising agencies take to sell their counterfeit dreams. “Spend more! Spend more!” they cry. “If you stop spending, everyone else who is will pull ahead. Do you really want to lose ground?”
Advertising is a sacrifice of sorts and it demands that blood be spilt on its altar. Advertisers sacrifice vast amounts of money every day to a vast number of media environments. Just 20 years ago, there were less than a dozen to choose from. With such a mammoth growth in possibilities over such a small time frame, who knows what the heck they’re doing? Since there are thousands and thousands of advertising messages getting nailed into our heads every day, someone must be winning. But it’s not who you think.
Consider these two mammoth advertisers: Harvey Norman and JB Hi-Fi. Together they spend over $100 million every year on advertising. Will this huge advertising spend save them when Amazon enters the Australian market in 2018? No. Harvey Norman and JB Hi-Fi offer nothing of real value to consumers. Price has no value, and since they sell the same products, offer similar retail experiences, and their advertising even screams to consumers in the same way, they’re doomed. Amazon is going to destroy them and they’ll do it without advertising. Seems presumptuous but Amazon’s marketing is built into the brand and it will alter the competitive environment for electronics retailers forever. Amazon can afford the low mark-ups; they don’t have to pay the same amount on wages, leases and marketing. All the other two can do is drop prices and lower marketing costs. And that won’t help; it’s contrary to everything they’ve ever done before.
So, will their heritage of gambling with advertising pay off for Harvey Norman and JB Hi-Fi? As I said before, there’s maybe a fifty-fifty chance their advertising will save them, but if I were a gambling man, I’d bet everything I possibly could on Amazon to win.
Programmatic advertising during wartime
George Orwell said, “People will believe whatever the media tells them to believe.” Well, I believe we’re at war. I’m not too sure who we’re at war with but that’s what I’ve been led to believe. The media has, and always will be, a very powerful influencer. The same is true of advertising. In fact, it’s difficult to find the difference between the media and advertising. The same publications, TV stations, websites, and social media feeds that tell you what to believe about wars with Muslim terrorists or Russian hackers, are the same publications, TV stations, websites, and social media feeds used by advertisers to tell you what to believe about clothing, food, sex and everything else imaginable. The media and advertising are conjoined twins, and their name is Propaganda.
If you look back to the Second World War you’ll see some terrifying propaganda taking place. On both the Allied and Axis fronts, propaganda drove men to war, called women to service and sent Jews to death camps. During the Second World War, propaganda and advertising were not as conjoined as they are today. The truth is, you can’t advertise much when you’re getting the crap bombed out of you 24 hours a day. And if your war machine is only focused on bombing the crap out of people 24 hours a day, then logically there’s nothing of consequence to advertise. As an example, during WW2 the General Tire Company placed advertisements encouraging people not to buy tyres for the sake of rationing rubber. Seems smart.
In 2017, we don’t have a supply issue. Unless you’re a Syrian, you’ve never had it better. Everything you’ll ever want is available and everything you’ll ever need has already been invented. Instead of being told by propaganda to fight “the Japs” as they did back in 1942, you’re being told by propaganda to consume products like a vampire, unconcerned that they may never be replenished.
The newest advertising tool pushing this mass broadcast to consume everything is called programmatic advertising. In case you don’t know, programmatic advertising enables media agencies to track potential customers around the web and serve them adverts on whichever website they are browsing. Within milliseconds of loading a webpage, a system using complex computer algorithms will serve up an ad that’s theoretically perfect for you, based on your online profile. Unfortunately, the click-through rates for programmatic advertising are always dire, averaging in the low 1 percent area. But that’s not the point. Advertisers are in it for the millions and millions and millions of impressions that programmatic advertising can buy.
I have mixed feelings about programmatic advertising. I don’t like seeing it and as an advertiser, I only use it under duress. There are a few reasons for this, but the most important one to me is that we’re at war, fighting Muslim terrorists and North Korean dictators. If you’re not sure what this has got to do with advertising, please consider this example:
I have a client who was told by their media buying company that programmatic advertising is a great way to build brand awareness because of the huge number of impressions they’ll get. My client’s core business revolves around trucks. Renting, leasing, selling, and driving trucks. These days, terrorists use trucks as weapons of war. Since I’m a cynic, I believe that it’s highly likely that when the next truck massacre occurs and it’s broadcast on the web, programmatic advertising will present my client’s advertisements before a news report for such an incident. Imagine the headline: “Twelve killed by truck in terrorist attack! Click to view the full story”. But first, watch this ad about a company that rents trucks. That’s grossly inappropriate, a bad association and a terrible brand strategy. Cynicism aside, how could this happen? Let’s consider the programmatic advertising system and its aforementioned complex computer technology. Actually, it’s not so complex. It doesn’t know the difference between keywords. It knows that if your search history involves a lot of trucks then it needs to play my client’s truck-focused advert for you. The system doesn’t care about content and how it relates to my client’s business. And with billions of impressions happening every day it’s very probable that my client’s ad will show under circumstances like this.
It happens more often than you think. Thanks to programmatic advertising hundreds of large companies, including Verizon, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, and Nissan have had their advertising appearing on hate sites and YouTube videos created by supporters of terrorist groups such as the Islamic State. Adverts for Disney were embedded in sunnah-online.com, a website which hosts lectures by Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, a preacher who has argued that a husband cannot be charged with rape. Hoorah for Disney. So sorry for rape victims.
Programmatic advertising is a big concern for me and it should be for the entire advertising industry and everyone who uses them. There is a huge risk of ads appearing in violent, pornographic, extremist and other unsafe brand environments simply because of the volume and speed at which programmatic advertising is carried out. Programmatic advertising isn’t being used because it delivers better results for clients. Far from it. It’s used almost exclusively to make media and advertising agencies lots of money.
In closing, I’d like to compare programmatic advertising to a bomb. Some people like them, but most don’t. Some will tell you that using a bomb is necessary to protect freedom and liberty. Some will say they’re compelled to use bombs to fight injustice and intolerance. But, like most weapons of war, the difference between what’s right and what’s wrong is only a matter of perspective. I hope that your perspective on programmatic advertising becomes a lot more like mine.
How to Advertise for World Peace
Kei Serrano takes a look at how advertising could heal the world in light of the terrible tragedies that hit Manchester when a terrorist attack occurred during Ariana Grande’s concert.
What is happening to the world?! Natural calamities, killings here and there, even the slightest sibling rivalries (Yes, to all you millennials reading this, I’m talking about Logan and Jake Paul on Youtube) filmed and broadcast for the world to see. We see it all. Thanks to the Internet and media.
Thanks or no thanks? Well, humans are naturally curious beings that instinctually prioritise survival. Our survival instincts drive us to explore our environment, and since we live on this planet, we’re curious to know everything that’s happening around us and even everything in the world – that’s most likely why we have world news in every country. We are all one species after all.
With the vast number of horrible things happening, I’d like to focus on the well-talked about “One Love Manchester” concert that happened last Monday. The details are all over the Internet but in a nutshell, a terrorist attack occurred during Ariana Grande’s concert in Manchester two weeks ago, and thanks to the Internet again, it wasn’t hard to find out how much the attack shook the young lady. Ariana then stated that “we won’t let hate win”, thus holding the concert to honour the victims of the attack. Her words about not letting hate win got me to thinking, if all of us were to operate with love – what a world it would be.
I know it sounds so cliché but think about it. In my opinion, there are only two things that hinder us from achieving peace: indifference and hate.
Let’s talk about indifference. There are heaps of individuals who simply don’t care anymore. Taking your own path is good, but whatever happened to empathy? If we cared enough for each other, setting aside our own beliefs, race, and culture and simply accepting that we all have one thing in common: we are all human beings. If we all realise this and cared enough to let it matter to us, the world will automatically be a better place.
The second one: hate, the more daunting hindrance of world peace. Need I say more? Although, a friend once told me that hate can be a good thing – hatred of something bad – because having an immense amount of passion for disliking something means that you love its exact opposite. It’s not applicable for everything but take the hatred of war for example. Hating war means that you love peace. However, how many of us even contribute to peace at all? I’m always on social media – it’s part of my job. But to be honest, there are times that I don’t want to have personal social media accounts anymore because of all the negativity and chaos. The majority simply complain about how messed up this world has become adding more hate in a space accessible by everyone. I tend to think that you should either say something good or don’t say anything at all!
Admittedly, this blog piece has become more and more of a challenge as I’m writing it because of the realisation that I have become one of those indifferent individuals. I do my best not to contribute to the negativity in my personal social media accounts and I only ever try to spread positivity through the work I produce.
Let me tell you about that other world: The World of Advertising! Full of wonder, art, and the occasional pun. A powerful tool that persuades and influences individuals, mainly to purchase a product or service but I believe it does so much more than that. Advertising has the capability to alter people’s perspectives and when the real world is as chaotic as it is right now, it wouldn’t hurt to use advertising to change the minds of individuals about certain things.
What if advertising becomes the voice of people who were/are hurt? What if advertising is used to send hope and love instead of it merely disseminating information? The question now is how? Is it even possible? I ask this because advertising is used to get something in return but what this world needs right now is selflessness.
Advertising can be used to dig up love in people’s hearts. Call me crazy for thinking it’s possible, but I believe it is. If advertisers can persuade people to buy fidget spinners, I think advertisers can indeed convince everyone to choose love and not let hate win. (If only they were willing to do this without asking for anything in return.)
Selfless advertising should be a thing, don’t you think? For every ad, a message of love and hope should be advertised as well. That’s how you advertise for world peace. Will you be willing to do this? I challenge you to do so.
Being a critic is easy.
Let's take a look at what advertising agencies do when their work is rejected. Creativity is measured on a sliding scale so one man's beautiful Picasso is another's pile of junk.
Partisan Advertising was recently hired to work on a logo and branding design.
We were recommended to the client by our good friends at Digital Masters. After numerous passionate meetings, held in insanely hot and humid coffee shops, and after the quote was drummed down by 25%, we were given the go-ahead to start.
After 52 hours of time (including meetings, travel, and everything else), tracked on our third favourite piece of software, Time Doctor, we finished the logo design. We presented a series of bespoke designs, complete with executions of what the logo would look like across a range of media, covering everything from a web page to the good old business card to the App icon thousands of people would see on their smartphones.
After almost two days of dead silence following the presentation, we received an email response: “I have spoken with the board regarding the excellent logo & branding designs you sent through and number #1 has been the favourite across the board. We feel the logo is a perfect fit for the company and the speech bubbles emphasise the idea of connectivity and dialogue we are wanting to establish between our users.”
Hoorah, great success! Let’s crack open the Bollinger. Well, not exactly.
When the client presented the approved logo to their web design company, everything came off the rails. In less than 15 minutes, the logo was flat out rejected, the client’s positive decision had been overturned based on the input from their web designers, and Partisan Advertising was asked to leave the playground.
Rejection is a common speed bump found in the world of logo design (and the world at large). This is not the first time it’s happened to me and I’m certain it won’t be the last.
I can imagine that by the time you've finished reading this post, thousands of logo rejections will have taken place across the globe. If you consider how economical and easy it is to commission a logo through websites like fiver.com or freelancer.com, you can easily see how quickly logo design has become a downhill race to cheapness and uneducated decision-making. With so many options available, and so many logos flying past our eyes every day, how do we make a qualified decision about what logo is right for us?
I recently read a blog that said the most you should spend on a logo is $500. Apparently, any more than that was pointless. Legend has it that Nike paid $36 dollars for their swoosh logo. Based on the aforementioned blog, Nike got the bargain of the millennium considering that today their brand is valued at $24 billion dollars.
But bitching and moaning about being rejected isn’t the point of this blog post. Nor is how much you should pay for a logo. The point is that you must always be true to yourself, regardless of where, what, and how. And this logo design rejection reminded me of that.
At Partisan Advertising we have a very black-and-white approach. The idea of grey areas is alien to us. Our business strategy, when conceived in 2010, was built around a simple philosophy: The advertising agency for everyone is the advertising agency for no one.
Whenever I’ve been true to this philosophy it has paid huge returns. I’m not talking about financially – money is never the object; I’m talking about spiritually and emotionally. I’m talking about the reward of recognising and honouring your beliefs. I’m talking about the goose flesh that cascades warmly over your skin when something triggers the awareness in your mind that you are being true to what you hold as sacrosanct.
And true to form, without fail, every time Partisan has stepped away from our core beliefs, we’ve paid a terrible price. And this logo design job is a perfect example. The company in question has a business philosophy that contradicts ours in every way: We will be everything to everyone.
When two diametrically opposed philosophies meet, the only outcome can be chaos.
You might ask why I didn’t pull the plug on this job before it got started? It seems so obvious and all the signs were there, so why did I carry on with it? I’m not sure how to answer that.
I think sometimes I push onwards hoping to convert people to my way of thinking. I mean, I’m always right, aren’t I? When I forget my beliefs, this push for conversion goes way too far, and the next thing you know I’m running into a coffee shop with two kilos of C4 strapped to my chest yelling “This logo is good! This logo is glorious!” After chaos comes madness.
Maybe I did it for the money? But I said it before: money is never the object, it just gives chaos a place to hide. After all, I must feed the beast that fuels my belief structure and pays wages. And that’s the conundrum. Which would I rather have: starving and sleeping under Grafton Bridge because my beliefs are so rigid, or living in comfort in a million-dollar home because I’m flexible, and wise enough, to know just how much leash to give?
In a meeting a few weeks ago, I said to a client that I have no idea how to do a “cheap” job. Because all my creative work is based around thoughts, experiences and ideas, it’s impossible to dial down my brain to do lesser work. Some people may however remark that I haven’t been able to dial my brain up to do any decent work (criticism = easy = fun). It’s simple when it comes to manufacturing: use cheaper materials, outsource to India, make more, charge less; someone, somewhere will buy what you’re selling. But how can that be done in my world?
The only thing that separates Partisan from the throng of other agencies out there is our people and our beliefs.
Partisan and our competitors have many things in common: We all have access to the same computers, the same resources, the same world. But our biggest difference, and the most important one, is that Partisan’s beliefs are different. So different that we scare people. So different that we make our clients millions and millions of dollars every year. So different that a logo design matters as much to us as anything else in the world.
Without beliefs, you have nothing.
The crux of the scenario however is that having beliefs, and standing by them, is vital but at the end of the day it’s just as important to have someone who believes in you as much as you believe in them. This is true not just in logo design but in everyday life.
I want to thank my logo design client for reminding me of this.