Jake… youu. What are you doing that small?
Is the internet smart? Are apps the most we could currently hope for, at our current epoch, out of the internet? Are apps really harnessing the power the internet could provide? Is this really it? Or is it time we start thinking about how the internet can function in ways to the average person more than Google searches and vanity apps to make our lives “easier .” A large infrastructure change, not just an interface change is what will make the internet dynamic. The only enhancements I see are the differing sizes of screens. Why are we so hung up on different screen sizes? Pads, phones, laptops. Pads, phones, laptops. Oh yea, and Google Glass which is just another screen size affixed to the head. Companies have turned our desire for change into a unidimensional one in the way we use the internet. How sad? Why have we let businesses like Google determine what the internet is for everyone? Information. Is that all it is? Information that, for my average search, 90% of which is not significant to me. Are 296 million search results efficient when I only ever need one? And, maybe more importantly, have the rest of us given up in lieu of allowing these huge companies to determine the future?
The internet has done a lot of really great and interesting things. Economies of scale, accelerated technological advancement, communications connectivity, etc. But aren’t all these really simply an affect of the information age brought on by the thing and not the thing itself?
"…lesser than I expected."
Driverless cars, quantum computers, improvements in home and personal safety, medicine and health diagnostics. Is the internet only about what’s coming and not what’s here now? It feels like we’re always waiting in the potential of the internet without ever participating in the kinesis of it.
App designs are taking the brunt of this future possibility, but for me, it just seems… lesser than I expected.
With companies like Google and Apple stuck in the information age, my guess is we probably will not see much in the way of agile infrastructure changes for some time. The information age still of course has much room with which to grow and evolve. But, it seems like we’ll have to wait until it’s done playing out until we see smarter, more dynamic progress in the Internet world.
"The website of tomorrow will function like a transformer, shifting into a new shape for each viewer and catering content apt to one instead of many."
I once believed years ago the future of advertising was akin to an ad that brought together many brands and products and services to raise the bar of consumer interaction. In some ways, I saw it as…
Procter Gamble TV Commercial 2014 Olympics
…an umbrella company like Procter and Gamble. A sleuth of products and brands being used in unison to convey a lifestyle. The selling of a life not your own in a way that did not sell you one product but many. The camera would rove over your home as a user, a mom or dad, would use many brands with the same ideal in mind. In P&G’s case, an advanced state of family life attainable by quality products. Increased satisfaction and pleasure through an undeniable value on quality.
As internet advertising takes over (and TV ads begin to level out and drop until being consumed technologically by the internet), brand building techniques will go the way of the dinosaur. The idea of advertising that ‘we hope this will work’ is replaced by ‘we know this is working’. Companies may be considered citizens, but they act more like robots. If they know something is making money, it is valued over long term branding and longitudinal lifestyle shifts that yield no current, instant gratifying, shareholder inflating quantitatives in revenue, share of market, or ROI.
This of course will hurt the creative industry immensely. The place where long-lasting, brand building campaigns are made. Consumer metrics are increasing at an incredible clip. Because of the internet, and unregulated spying, we can see how a buyer interacts with its media to make a purchase, in addition to how they act in more general ways when he or she is just surfing around. This means a smaller gap between what we know and what we want to know. Media habits will become so understood in this environment as to negate a lot of the guesswork which accounts for a huge amount of wasted ad budgets. This, in turn, means more focused market information and an increased accountability on the advertiser to convert. A brief and a creative agency’s interpretation of it, will no longer be a loose targeted connection. A place where currently throwing that dart may be wildly off the bullseye if the idea is groundbreaking enough or smart enough or on-brand enough will become less acceptable and diminish. The creative creators will be less encouraged and less able to interpret their own visions for brands, companies, and campaigns (provided you buy into the fact that agencies have any power or influence here at all). And so the art will be leeched from the industry.
Content creators are the funnels for aggregating this information whether we like it or not. They hold the key. What we know now about consumers through metrics and bots and beacons and cookies is due to consumers visiting their websites. And so, with all that information at their behest, content creators will become the advertisers. Why not? They have the information. What good are they doing giving it away to advertisers, and outsourcing the work? It ultimately becomes a cost cutting maneuver.
And so I propose the technique of product placement we know today will be a fixture in the changing fabric that content creation will become. Metrics and data will be used to cater to users directly.Websites will become increasingly more powerful as the technologies advance.The website of tomorrow will function like a transformer. Shifting into a new shape for each viewer and catering content apt to one instead of many. What does this mean? It means we will consume advertising without being aware of it. Minority Report, with its eye scanning and prescience for our clothing preferences, will serve as an antiquated example of our ignorance and inability to tell the future. A direct assault on our presence is the current interface and it has never been anyone’s preference.
The future of ads will be subtle. It will be in the form of persuasion not selling. Imperceptible and underlying. Our products will be ingrained in our content. Persuasion will be the goal and will work at a meta-textual level. Fragmentation and the delineation of the internet landscape has created an ideal in the consumer psychology and thinking of their content. It’s there for ME. It’s MINE because? Well, because of the internet. This of course will change. Citizen Kane prevails again! as publishers will break loose from the ideals of the current internet age and dole out articles and news that make you believe in your free choice. (Wow, that got dystopic real fast.)
Point of purchase and purchase funnel placement will go extinct as the manipulation will have been done on a greater level and over a greater amount of time. (I’d say a lifetime if that weren’t already the case with, for example, cereal ads targeted to children and brands that capitalize into adolescence and beyond.) It will become a technicality. Content = Attention. And attention has always been the holy grail of advertising. The one metric unattainable. Here it is ingrained into the fabric of the users’ content.
Companies have the wealth of large towns and will soon have the wealth of large city’s of people. This means a vast agency of control and power. It also means the transformation of media in ways we can’t yet know. Advertising with its spiked form of interaction with its users in fits and starts will be smoothed out like peanut butter. Why? Because with money comes affordability of time, and with time comes the ability to learn.
"An ad is no longer an ad when it’s expertly targeted. It’s information."
It only makes sense to me to buy the content and with new tech, manipulate it in a way that’s indistinguishable. An ad is no longer an ad when it’s expertly targeted. It’s information. That dividing line is already blurring rapidly, and doing so within a fragmented industry of technology, hackers, and companies all vying to ultimately do the same thing while taking a windy, segmented road to do it. Once that beast starts to focus and create partnerships with similar objectives, the technology will understand us in such a way as to know us.
Our media use and our need for information is only increasing. Once our current channel boom in media consumption evens (presuming it does), we will finally be able to look at media habits and gain real world perspectives and averages on what’s actually happening. Companies will be the only ones capable of bringing us knowledge in the billions of different ways we desire.
I was wrong. I was saw the unison of brands and products and companies coming together to sell an ideal all at once. And that may very well still happen over the current evolution of advertising.
Procter & Gamble Launches Corporate Advertising Campaign
Ideas like this are getting closer and closer to a more realized industry of persuasion. But why take the gamble to try to sell you something with a tiny ad in seconds, with impressions and glancing eyes, when I can sell you a philosophy over time? A philosophy that causes you to buy Procter and Gamble and not just sell it to you. How crude this model will look in the future. I think the real question, the one that will get us from there to here, that will ultimately decide how this works out, is will we prefer it that way? Or better yet, will I, singularly, me and me alone, prefer it that way?
Charles Schwab TV ad: “Why?”
Wow. So many good things happening in this ad. Target market, makes sense. New dads, inundated with questions from their kids, yields immediate attention. The strategy harks back to the function of the ad: Do you know where your money is going? (The campaign tag is “Own Your Tomorrow” which I also really like for C.S.) My only gripe is the content of the questions he’s asked. You really don’t know where a lot of your money is going when you hand your financial management to a third party. (Though the whole story is rationalized by the way it plays out, i.e. the trip itself.) Still, clear and concise and interesting and rational.
I do still miss those rotoscoped “Talk to Chuck” ads. But I tend to like all rotoscoped things.
Put upon a spectrum of form and function, the new World Cup Hyundai ads from Innocean lie as far in favor of the form as I’ve seen in a while (putting a pin in the rambunctious ads of the Super Bowl). In a world where, as I’ve said before here, relevance is everything. It makes me wonder how effective this campaign is and can be. Look above, and in no way, in no distant connection or delineation of thought could this ad be construed as a car ad. The ad itself and the client simply have nothing to do with each other. And yet I found myself enamored by the story that unfolds. A story I wanted to play out in exactly the way it did. How satisfying? The rest of the campaign also is not relevant in any way to the product or to the rest of the campaign: all tied in loosely (very loosely) by the campaign’s tagline/hastag, #BecauseFutbol. (Which makes me think. What if an entire campaign is simply relevant to itself and not a product? Advertising for advertising’s sake? In an industry with little rules, are there any left to break?)
Now, I know what you’re thinking, I see ads that have nothing to do with products all the time. But consider the price and impressions involved in 64 games and a billion people watching. It’s an utterly massive scale. And the Super Bowl is probably the only analogous comparable at a fraction of what the World Cup brings. So when there’s so much money, like the S.B., does logic get thrown out the window when it comes to ad strategies? Well, of course. But can a company, any company, afford to pay up to hundreds of milltions of the kwan on a campaign that completely ignores the functional sides of your product? I guess, in today’s world, form is everything. Form is king. As a creative, I guess that’s a good thing. Long live form!
And here’s to hoping for an American Victory..and lot’s of proper condom use :)
A small child runs across the screen. He trips. Diving face first into the bricked corner of a short partition. All the “Dad Ad” ideas I’ve ever had focused on stereotypical dad traits: strength, protectiveness, intelligence, nostalgia. And Hyundai just relaunched their campaign that rolls all those things up into one great piece. Clear concept. Amazing execution. It’s rare that an idea can delineate a benefit in execution this succinctly. And yet, that benefit is not a new one. We’ve seen brake assist features on cars in ads before. And it’s a smart move to focus on one feature of an entire automobile. But that availability is only going to grow as technology in cars takes off, that is, until finally shutting off entirely.
Will all car ads look like this from now on? Or simply be paired into a more encompassing campaign which includes the lazy, dreaded car on mountain, or car on desert, or car on FUCK YOU CAR ADS. Sorry. I just can’t stand car ads. No matter how interesting they look. And yet I love this one. Anyway, my point is that the only interesting ads are the ones that focus on one benefit. And if that’s enough to garner eyeballs, do cars co.’s even need to really focus on more?
As Google prepares to release their driverless cars into the wild (realistically) BY THE END OF THE DECADE. It’s funny to consider how these benefits will be a thing of the past, how aesthetic design, safety features, mpg, brand will all be a thing of the past. No really. If your head is down during 90% of your travel time, whose going to care what those around you are driving? What benefit can a car have, at that point, that will beat out Angry Birds, or Facebook, or breakfast (w/e that is)? Ads will no longer be able to rely on old ideas of what a car is to a person: your daddy. But interestingly and never before seen, nor will they be able to rely on mountain soaring or desert donuts to sell cars, anymore. I can’t wait.
Innocean USA. Super Bowl 2014.
It’s unbelievable how much ad space this “ad” has gotten. I don’t mean to be diminutive by putting it in quotes, but watch the ad. It sucks. It’s just terrible. Maybe it’s because I watch a lot of CNN and this ad has been playing a lot there. I don’t know. But it begs the question. If you’re a new competitor in a quite competitive online travel site industry, what’s more important when developing a campaign? Do you invest all your cash into creative quality? Or do you invest in media buys leaving the creative mumbo jumbo to Apple and the “other” guys?
In a tv environment where so many try to fit somewhere in the middle, Trivago has chosen quite firmly the latter. Putting a pin in the eye roll and frantic search for the remote every time it reappears during my Erin Burnett pregnancy updates, I can’t help but wonder who the hell this Scott Bakula look-a-like is and why he is talking to me like a Gen X mother of three. I guess that’s the rub: I’m just not this campaign’s target market. Which I guess I can’t help but find odd for a person entering my 30’s with travel always on my mind. Is Trivago just targeting a different market? Is this plain approach to messaging effective with this target when it’s compounded by a shear obnoxious amount of impressions?
Update: Considering weeks later, I still see this god-forsaken ad again and again, I’m guessing the campaign has been effective. If only every target responded that way. I guess advertising would be a lot less fun, though. (Just don’t tell Hulu.)
You can afford to be reasonable.
I just had this thought, in the context of: Meda, you are 90% certain you have a job, and if it pays as promised, you will have the funds...