January 26, 2005

the cluetrain-lovemarks deathmatch (cont.)

zzzzzz7654103.jpg
A com­ment I made in a recent gaping­void post:

What do I see repla­cing the stan­dard ad agency model? Tons.
The trou­ble for Madi­son Ave­nue is, these repla­ce­ments are being inven­ted by peo­ple other than the ad agen­cies.
Goo­gle Adsense wasn’t inven­ted by Young & Rubi­cam. Mova­ble Type wasn’t inven­ted by Leo Bur­nett. The Clue­train Mani­festo wasn’t writ­ten by John Hegarty. I could go on for pages…
It’s the old biz school maxim: the rail­road com­pa­nies didn’t get into air­li­nes. The horse and buggy com­pa­nies didn’t get into auto­mo­bi­les.
What will replace the mono­lithic agency model? Another mono­lith? Or lots of dif­fe­rent little new models?

Not all ad agen­cies are doo­med tomo­rrow. But even the good ones are con­cer­ned by the way the industry is hea­ding– of course, they won’t state this publi­cally.
Some agen­cies will re-invent them­sel­ves suc­cess­fully and thrive. Others won’t. Life is unfair.
How radi­cal this re-invention will have to be in order to make it through the shred­der is hotly con­tes­ted. That’s what makes Cluetrain-Lovemarks Death­match so inte­res­ting to par­ti­ci­pate in.

"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter. A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.]. A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.

20 Responses to “the cluetrain-lovemarks deathmatch (cont.)”

  1. “Some agen­cies will re-invent them­sel­ves suc­cess­fully and thrive. Others won’t. Life is unfair.“
    The Mar­ket appo­li­gi­zes.
    I’ve always liked that line.

  2. TonyD says:

    Hugh, I’ve been rea­ding your blog for six months now. I guess I should’ve read the Hugh­train a little more clo­sely. I just got laid off from my high power wri­ting gig, and rea­li­zed that I wasn’t the hotshot wri­ter I was back in 1997. The world chan­ged around me, and I was asleep. Thanks for hel­ping me chatch up.

  3. I just noti­ced this story today, thought it might be of inte­rest to you, Hugh.
    NEW YORK — Follo­wing an exo­dus of key per­son­nel, J. Wal­ter Thomp­son has clo­sed down Icon Enter­tain­ment @JWT, the unit it launched in 2002 for branded-entertainment pro­jects. The move marks the WPP Group-owned agency’s second fai­led attempt in the arena.

  4. sabrina_c says:

    you are fuc­king awe­some and i hate everything. such an anomaly.

  5. keith says:

    Hugh:
    I salute you!
    Yes, it’s got to change; ever­yone in the ad biz is grin­ding out the same shit that expands expo­nen­tially into more clut­ter – in print, tele­vi­son, bill­boards – it’s even on pos­ters in front of you while taking a piss at a uri­nal. The con­su­mer can’t pro­cess all of it. The pricks in the ad biz are obli­vious to the chan­ges going on – while they all mutually mas­ter­bate each other with awards.
    Remem­ber the saying, “I waste half of my money on adver­ti­sing; the pro­blem is that I don’t know which half.” Guess what? At last, the client has figu­red out exactly how much money they are was­ting on adver­ti­sing.
    Finally, the clients have star­ted sme­lling the shit; they are get­ting wise. Today, more money pou­red into adver­ti­sing is just a dimi­nishing return. It’s long over­due. The “con­ven­tio­nal” ad biz must die a quick and sud­den death.

  6. Hamish says:

    Ad fati­gue. Fati­guing ads.
    The Bri­tish try and over­come ad fati­gue with inte­res­ting ads. “You know, the one where the eagle swoops down over the ocean, and meta­morpho­ses into a lobs­ter, just as the tree bursts into fla­mes, and David Beckham kicks the egg whisk into the arms of the silione brea­ted super­mo­del cove­red in feathers.“
    “Oh yeah, I saw that. What was it for?“
    ”.“
    Right. Ad fati­gue, not giving any addi­tio­nal bene­fit to the poor bloody client. Worst one at the moment is that bloody stu­pid Bri­tiah Air­ways one, where the tra­ve­ller looks out of the taxi on the plane at the beach sees musi­cians sawing away at that theme tune they have had for a long time.
    Ad account exe­cu­tive: “This really exten­ding the core brand mes­sage into an inte­rac­tive expe­ren­tial rela­tionship, that adds value to the con­su­mer inte­rac­tion.“
    Cus­to­mer: “What are those dorks stan­ding in a field full of cow­pats with trom­bo­nes. I rec­kon that if I am going to tra­vel anywhere it will be chea­pest avai­la­ble for short haul, and if I am for­ced to go long haul I will go hungry Arab. Hungry Arab is the new trend to hubs out of Dubai, and Qatar, good ser­vice low costs. OK, you have to change aero­pla­nes in the Gulf, but if you are going serious long haul, what the hell is the dif­fe­rence in chan­ging in Dhu­bai or Sin­ga­pore?“
    So, that works.
    The alter­na­tive is the fac­toid adver­ti­sing — “Got piles? You need pre­pa­ra­tion H, over 99.99% of cus­to­mers had a less sore ass when they used it.“
    Pro­blem is con­text. If I don’t have a sore ass, then this is use­less and emba­ras­sing infor­ma­tion. Howe­ver, if I am loo­king for infor­ma­tion, then this is good con­text based rela­tionships.
    I won­der why Goo­gle Ad words are selling strongly.…
    As for the rest, it’s just ugly wallpaper.

  7. Keith says:

    True Story:
    Last week, I was out with “the gang” (about twelve of us) for beers. None of them work in marketing/advertising. The sub­ject of com­mer­cials came up and over 30 minu­tes of group con­ver­sa­tion was devo­ted to bashing stu­pid TV spots that made no sense. The typi­cal com­ment was, “What in the fuck was all that about?“
    Look, even the ave­rage con­su­mer has figu­red out that the bulk of adver­ti­sing is total shit.
    As Hamish said about the ad execs, “This really is exten­ding the core brand mes­sage into an inte­rac­tive expe­ren­tial rela­tionship, that adds value to the con­su­mer inte­rac­tion.“
    No, it’s not. It’s making the con­su­mer ask, “What in the fuck was all that about?”

  8. Joe Hoyle says:

    So, the “big­ger you are, the slo­wer you move” and most agen­cies have become too slow to the point of a slow death. I’m not sure. While I agree that, on the face of it, some ‘mono­lithic’ agen­cies are not nim­ble and shrewd enough to keep up with the mar­ket, most have stra­te­gi­cally pos­tio­ned them­sel­ves to move in an agile way by frag­men­ting their busi­ness offe­rings into sma­ller, more mana­gea­ble com­pa­nies. These com­pa­nies will survive

  9. AH says:

    Like so much in life, a Love­Mark that is the result of accu­mu­la­ted mea­ning — Apple, Cape­zio when I was a little girl — is full of effec­tive mea­ning. One fois­ted on us, like the New Age Cof­fees of Star­bucks, or cons­tantly refe­rred to to con­firm we still love it, makes me queasy.
    Love is a result of grace in a pre­pa­red place. Er somfin.

  10. Dwight Little says:

    Adver­ti­sing as we know it is inef­fec­tive. Adver­ti­sing as we know it is obso­lete. Adver­ti­sing as we know it is extinct.
    Have I got that right?
    Once again, I ask Hugh — and Keith and the rest — if “the ‘con­ven­tio­nal’ ad biz must die a quick and sud­den death,” what will replace it?
    I’m not trying to be snarky or insin­cere. I am genui­nely curious. I keep hea­ring peo­ple on this site gas on about advertising’s ills — and there is much truth to what you say. But I don’t hear too many conc­rete alternatives.

  11. BadMarketing says:

    Why Love­marks Offends Us

    There’s a lot of hate out there for Love­marks, the “beyond bran­ding” mar­ke­ting sch­tick. The thing is, these brand rela­tionships weren’t deve­lo­ped over­night, they weren’t manu­fac­tu­red by an ad agency, and it’s insul­ting to the brands we do love and res…

  12. Rerun says:

    Just my 2cents:
    We still use land­line based pho­nes, we still write let­ters and post them by snail-mail. So Adver­ti­sing as we know won’t die quick. It will dwindle and lose much of its domi­nee­ring role in cor­po­rate mar­ke­ting comm­nu­ca­tion but it wont’t become extinct.
    News­pa­pers and Maga­zi­nes will inc­lude ads in their print issues als will TV shows.
    But — as far as I got it — the point Hugh is trying to make: Clas­si­cal Ad-Agencies won#t be the lea­ding pla­yers in the com­mu­ni­ca­tion game.
    Who will replace them? Mar­ke­ters with a deep unders­tan­ding of con­ver­sa­tions. Some of these will work on the cor­po­rate side and con­duct an orches­tra of agen­cies (clas­si­cal, diao­lo­gue, inte­rac­tive, viral etc.) Others will fill that role outside cor­po­ra­tions and found Meta-Agencies which will con­cen­trate on the deve­lop­ment of con­ver­sa­tions (or com­mu­na­ca­tion stra­te­gies and ideas) which will span dif­fe­rent chan­nels.
    The clas­si­cal mono­lithic agency with its focus on (TV-)ad-Spots, Print-Ads and Radio-Spots is a dying spe­cies.
    Some even know this: Jung/von Matt, a ger­man crea­tive Hotshop just for­med a new Unit for dia­lo­gue– and inte­rac­tive cen­te­red cam­paigns and expect that unti to gene­rate up to 40% of their gross bud­gets in the near future.
    (sorry, no english press release to link to)

  13. The future agency will be run by suc­cess­ful ad-bitrageurs. To unders­tand why, read Money­ball by Michael Lewis.
    From a June 2004 issue of For­tune:
    The ascen­sion of the media buyer com­ple­tely dis­rup­ted Madi­son Avenue’s old assembly line. “We’re get­ting to the point where the media plan is done first, and the crea­tive is deve­lo­ped behind it,” says Ver­klin. “That is a radi­cal vision for the adver­ti­sing busi­ness that would have been unheard of five years ago.” He adds: “We used to be the dorks. Now we’re dri­ving the whole adver­ti­sing process.”

  14. hugh macleod says:

    Well, Frank, one advan­tage of buying media first is “the idea” is limi­ted by what you have bought.
    If all you have are 30-second com­mer­cial buys on Sein­feld re-runs, it gives you a “place” to focus. No need to spend weeks coming up with direct, print, gue­ri­lla ideas etc.
    I think it’s somewhat put­ting the cart before the horse, but hey, wel­come to Madi­son Avenue.

  15. AdPulp says:

    Love­marks Must Be Genuine Article

    The anti-Lovemarks argu­ment just found its voice (or at least one I can rea­dily com­prehend), thanks to Rob at Bad Mar­ke­ting. He wri­tes: “Love­marks isn’t com­plete bunk. The vitrio­lic res­ponse comes because this ad agency has crea­ted and hyped the…

  16. Hugh,
    As I think you noted elsewhere on your blog, the old days of media buying were pretty sleepy. But going for­ward, as the media lands­cape beco­mes ABSURDLY frag­men­ted, there is a new oppor­tu­nity for agen­cies (a/o stand-alone media plan­ning shops) to dif­fe­ren­tiate by get­ting clients the lowest pos­si­ble CPM for their tar­get demo — adjus­ting, of course, for the impact­ful­ness of dif­fe­rent media. (Kno­wing how to make these adjust­ments is, of course, a big piece of the puzzle.)
    And the best ad-bitrageurs will be the folks who make those buys…
    Of course, a great media plan w/ crap crea­tive won’t work…
    But at the “struc­tu­ral” level, the big oppor­tu­nity for a game-changing play revol­ves around the ad-bitrageurs…
    Again, read Moneyball…

  17. Hugh,
    As it hap­pens, today Goo­gle launched the beta of their AdWords API. From the project’s offi­cial blog (http://adwordsapi.blogspot.com/):
    “The AdWords API beta pro­gram is an open invi­ta­tion to deve­lo­pers to explore new con­cepts (and then write great soft­ware) for mana­ging Goo­gle AdWords adver­ti­sing cam­paigns. Large adver­ti­sers can use it for their com­plex ad mana­ge­ment needs, like tying pro­duct mar­gins to opti­mi­zed key­word bids.Third par­ties can use the API to build new inter­fa­ces to manage their client accounts. Best of all, an API ena­bles the crea­tion of all sorts of unan­ti­ci­pa­ted ideas.“
    Watch the ad-bitrageurs go wild here…
    Espe­cially if/when an AdSense API is introduced…

  18. Keith says:

    What is going to replace con­ven­tio­nal marketing/advertising? Pro­du­cing the best pro­ducts and ser­vi­ces. Look, for the last 50 years, the bulk of what the con­su­mer was offe­red has been shit. The role of advertising/ mar­ke­ting has been trying to con­vince the con­su­mer that this chic­ken shit is chic­ken salad.
    Here’s an exam­ple: Shitty ser­vice at Bri­tish Air­ways, outs­tan­ding ser­vice at Sin­ga­pore Air. Why do peo­ple fly Sin­ga­pore? Because they deli­ver the best in the busi­ness. This outs­tan­ding ser­vice is how they mar­ket them­sel­ves.
    How does BA mar­ket them­sel­ves? By giving ave­rage ser­vice (at best) and then run­ning ads trying to con­vince peo­ple that they are as won­der­ful as Sin­ga­pore Air. Don’t bullshit us, give us bet­ter ser­vice. It really is that sim­ple.
    Another exam­ple: In-N-Out Bur­gers. This is a chain of ham­bur­ger stands throughout Cali­for­nia. No joke, these are the best ham­bur­gers on earth. Ask any­body in Cali­for­nia. They raise their own beef and it’s never fro­zen. Your bur­ger is coo­ked to order. Your french fries are made from a fresh potato, not fro­zen. Milk sha­kes are hand made with a mixer – not from one of those soft ice cream machi­nes. Even the let­tuce is fresh from the gar­den, not pre-chopped from a sup­plier. The res­tau­rants are always spot­less. The emplo­yees speak English (a rarity on the west coast) and they are among the highest paid in the industry – they attract bet­ter peo­ple. The com­pany is fana­ti­cal about qua­lity. This is how they mar­ket them­sel­ves; a bet­ter pro­duct, a bet­ter expe­rience. It cost more and peo­ple are willing to pay for it.
    Look at McDo­nalds: A ton of natio­nal spots are trying to con­vince con­su­mers that the greasy bur­ger and fries par­ked under a war­ming lamp is “doing it all for you.” Well, fuck me. The food is shit and all of the adver­ti­sing in the world won’t make it taste bet­ter. Please, blow more smoke up the consumer’s ass.
    Often, you’ll find an In-N-Out Bur­ger next to a McDo­nalds. Nearly any­time of day, there are more peo­ple at the In-N-Out, relishing their meals. McDo­nalds will not have nearly as much traf­fic.
    Let’s see. McDo­nalds adver­ti­ses everywhere. In-N-Out doesn’t. Yet In-N-Out is more popu­lar; go figure.

  19. AdPulp says:

    Down Off That Soap­box Son

    In the com­ments area on Gaping Void, Dwight Little recently had this to say, “Adver­ti­sing as we know it is inef­fec­tive. Adver­ti­sing as we know it is obso­lete. Adver­ti­sing as we know it is extinct. Have I got that right?…

  20. Tom Sherman says:

    Love them buyers, cus­to­mers, clients. Make them feel loved! They may be unde­ser­ving, but they need to buy. Sounds so sim­ple, basic and blah. I have found suc­cess with emo­tions. When they hate me it is good. They are thin­king about me and it is an emo­tion and I have the impe­tus to turn it around when the hate comes. Make them love. Sorry Hugh sounds like I am teaching, but it was in me and had to come out.