Adland’s authenticity crisis
So is there something about advertising culture that creates an instinct to behave in an inherently inauthentic way?
The latest example comes to us courtesy of Panasonic.
As you may have read on Mumbrella, the brand is purporting to be carrying out a series of pranks on an unsuspecting “member of the public”. Via Facebook, the public is being invited to come up with ideas for future pranks to play on him.
Only we soon discovered, he’s not unsuspecting. He’s agreed to have the pranks played on him.
Lets add to the list the “real” women in the Kmart ad.
Obe could argue that any ad that tricks viewers is misleading and deceptive and thus a breach of the law.
Well said mate.
I’m not against a lack of authenticity in principle, as long as it appears authentic to the punters. Think Blair Witch.
Getting busted is really just immensely poor execution of a potentially OK idea, that’s all. Fake authenticity takes a lot of talent and a bit of risk.
Film school stuff really and heads should roll.
Day 1!!!!
Could it be a case of…
“All I need to make it in advertising is sincerity… and if I can fake that I’ve got it made”
As Ogilvy said, at least I think it was Ogilvy, the consumer isn’t an idiot – she’s your wife.
Why is the industry producing so much dribble?
Is it that the current crop of young up and coming creatives and account service people don’t know how to sell?
Everything is about humiliating people or stunts that attract 50 people on a street whilst the consumer walks past saying who are these wankers?
Or worse still, tell your whole audience that the only way you can access the campaign is to go to a Facebook page whilst the product such Panasonic’s Blu ray player get lost in the self indulgent piffle whilst 20 something creatives roll on the floor laughing at the agency believing their own bull s__t!!
It is just so boring and why are clients letting agencies talk them into approving this crud.
I wonder how many Blu ray players Pansonic has sold as a result of this rubbish.
I’m not sure lack of authenticity is the issue here….sure the clumsy set-ups and execution are exposing the lie which is a problem in itself as seen here the last couple of days. Also see Louie the Lie debacle of late.
In my opinion the bigger issue is that professional marketers are playing in this space, and so badly at that. Why they think punters want to interact with them over a whole month in order to be convinced of some product feature is beyond me. Seriously, who ran the meeting where it was decided this was a good idea?!
The tried and true model still works……there’s still a heap of people watching TV, going to the cinema, reading newspapers etc etc. Make a good ad and flog it hard to get it in front of as many relevant people as possible as many times as you can afford. Spend a bit more time on this old school but effective stuff and a lot less time on all this engagement crap, it’s overdone and under-performing.
If you have to, run a complementary promotion for the die-hard fans of your brand if you want to “engage”, but stop kidding yourself the broader population cares about you enough to participate in these rubbish campaigns.
These ludicrous stunts must be costing a fortune in production, and with no media budget or viral spark (because of the poor execution) they end up being a waste of money.
I was hoping marketers were seeing through this stuff but clearly not. And Panasonic should have learnt their lesson earlier in the year after their shite “viral” videos went nowhere as reported previously on Mumbrella.
Well said, could not agree more.
Rob, the reason marketers are not seeing through this stuff is today’s consumer is so hard-bitten, cynical, value conscious and interest rate over-burdened client marketers today are desperately trying anything any dick head from any agency comes up with to get a result. Even if it backfires and destoys inherent brand value. They’re deranged.
What happened to strategic thinking? Supporting the brand intelligently, creatively, innovatively through the tough times? Research shows this has worked in every depressed consumer market globally for 60 years.
Marketers should wake up to themselves.
begs the question – is marketing getting worse?
there’s all this false engagement, advocacy and outreach and innovation, technology etc … but does any of it add incremental value? read an “integrated” campaign post analysis with its huge billions of impressions, youtube finished views, tarps etc etc and it’s hard to work out whether it’s a desperate attempt to justify a spend/investment or a real collection of data that evaluates the strength of otherwise of a campaign.
this panasonic thing is basically sad. irrelevant agency trying to be topical partnered with equally eager client who desperately wants a ‘cool campaign’ ticket to a better job somewhere else. problem is – this is happening EVERYWHERE
i honestly believe people in agencies want to be inspired by their clients. and vice versa. right now seems both side of the fence are stuck in this cowardly groupthink which compels them to do this sort of horrendously bad stuff.
if this keeps up, who is going to want to join the ad/media industry?
Great article Tim. Also, spot on @Logic
Why do people think we have any choice in this? Advertising, to be relevant, has to reflect the market. For younger people, this is the era of making content at home and sharing it.
Problem is, it’s a very uncomfortable fit. Corporations don’t belong in this “space” because the whole movement is based on giving the finger to corporations. Today, you can publish your heartfelt opinion without having to go through a Murdoch editor. You can make a music video with your band and post it on You Tube – who needs ‘Rage’. Publish a book online–without a publisher.
But It’s not surprising that some agencies are getting it so wrong – we’re so skilled in the art of emotional manipulation using scripts, actors and music.
But some brands do get it. WHYBIN got it so right with their NRMA campaign – where anyone could hail their car and drive it, to prove everyone’s insured driving your car. And they cleverly integrated it into mainstream by videoing the “engagement” and making it into TV ads. It can be done, because it has to be done.
It doesn’t matter if these are real or not. Obviously these are entertainment for a product.
What’s Mumbrella’s issue? And while I am at it, what the hell is Mumbrella all about, you act like some crappy trash mag tabloid.