Stop justifying why no one’s looking at your ads
A Danish art exhibition featuring goldfish in blenders leads Dave Trott to consider the proliferation of dull briefs (and lack of goldfish murder) in advertising.
In 2000, the artist Marco Evaristti exhibited his work at the Trapholt Art Museum in Denmark.
The piece on show consisted of a row of ten kitchen blenders. They were all filled with water and plugged into the electric sockets, ready to use. Each blender contained two goldfish.
The goldfish were swimming happily round inside the blenders, unaware. Members of the audience were invited to switch the blenders on if they wanted to.
No one did, of course, they just watched the goldfish swimming happily around.
But then someone leaned forward and switched one of the blenders on. Of course, the goldfish died as everyone knew they would.
The audience gasped, they were horrified, how could anyone do such a thing? How could the artist even think of it? How could the art museum allow it?
In fact, the director of the museum, Peter Meyer, was prosecuted by ‘Friends of Animals’.
The police fined him 2,000 kroner, he declined to pay.
He said it was a matter of artistic freedom, the artist had a right, even a duty, to challenge conventional preconceptions.
So the case went to court.
Moulinex, the makers of the blender, testified that the fish would have died within one second of the blender being switched on. A veterinarian testified that the fish would have died painlessly, and suffered less than they would by being caught conventionally, with a hook or a net.
Judge Preben Bagger ruled that the fish were not treated cruelly as they had not faced prolonged suffering, they were killed instantly and humanely.
So the case was dismissed.
I think the most interesting thing about the whole case for me is the hypocrisy.
How many people who were shocked at the art show were vegetarians? How many people who were horrified by the story routinely ate meat or fish, without even thinking about it? As long as they don’t have to see the killing, or think about it, they couldn’t care less.
They are perfectly happy to sleepwalk through life.
Which is, for me, the main message of that exhibit.
The job was to wake people up.
Shouldn’t that be our job? Shouldn’t we be jolting people out of their unthinking, routine behaviour?
Shouldn’t we be stopping them from just walking past our poster, or fast-forwarding past our commercial, or skipping our pre-roll after three seconds?
Isn’t the most important job we do stopping people, making them think?
Or do we just carry on accepting the fact that no one outside of an awards jury ever even looks at advertising?
Do we accept another dull brief, another boring insight, the same old media plan, another mood-film masquerading as a commercial?
Because it’s easier to just sleepwalk through life until retirement. We can always use the excuse that it’s tough to make someone stop and look at an ad for washing powder, or make someone notice a chocolate bar.
If we need a reason why our advertising is invisible we can make one up easily enough. If our default position is that we don’t want to do it, then we’ll find ways to argue that it can’t be done.
And that will be the justification for the fact that no one ever looks at any of our ads.
Dave Trott is a consultant, author and former ad agency creative director. This article was first published on his blog.
“. . . no one ever looks at any of our ads.”
Truth hurts.
User ID not verified.
Whilst its an accepted truth in adland that ‘no-one ever looks at our ads’, I beg to differ. People do notice things that are relevant to them, no matter how blandly presented. Anyone who’s ever searched for a home knows that. All the real estate ads look the same, use the same style of photography, use the same familiar language. But, if you’re looking for a certain type of home, in a particular suburb, you can quickly and easily tell which ones are relevant to you and which ones aren’t.Therefore, I’d argue that most of the ads ‘no-one ever looks at’ are looked at and work perfectly well – and the money and time spent continuing to create them – is proof of their efficacy. If they didn’t get noticed, real estate agents would’ve stopped doing them years ago.
User ID not verified.
Nice
User ID not verified.
Bad analogy. In real estate, you overlook the fact that the buyers are looking for you.
Good ads may well be noticed by ‘the target audience’ but great ads are noticed by everyone. That’s Trott’s point.
User ID not verified.
Bugger. You come along and calmly de-bunk the opinion piece.
I can only say one thing, you heartless bastard.
Thanks!
User ID not verified.
But people look for lots of things. If I need toilet paper I’ll notice the toilet paper ad, even the crass supermarket retail offer version. So, same principle applies whether real estate or not.
User ID not verified.
The problem is the assumption that people not paying attention are “sleep-walking through life”. The reason people aren’t paying attention to adds is that for the vast majority they are concerned with matters far-far more important than your add.
The guy who walks past your billboard without so much of glance probably isn’t a brain dead drone. More likely he is a Dad thinking about how he is going to spend enough time with his kids while also earning enough to keep the house.
User ID not verified.
But you don’t live your every moment ‘needing’ a product.
You walk down the street thinking about that thing you have to do, then a funny billboard for a soft drink catches your attention.
You may not ‘need’ it or want it at that moment.
But that funny soft drink becomes something you’re more likely to remember the next time you ‘need’ one.
User ID not verified.
Dear ‘another cynic’,
Really?
User ID not verified.
Dear Line
Correct, but don’t expect ‘another cynic’ to agree.
User ID not verified.
More than happy to hear why you think ‘nup’.
Advertising isn’t just about ‘intent’ or ‘need’, it also helps brand perception.
User ID not verified.
No, I totally agree.
People don’t care about ads. They have far better things to do.
That’s why ads have to be compelling to make someone give a shit.
And compelling can mean a great retail offer for something you ‘need’, or an interesting bit of brand building communication that actually makes you pay attention.
User ID not verified.
Prove it
User ID not verified.
No. Ads don’t have to be compelling.
And people don’t have to give a shit about them.
They can be boring, poorly written, poorly art directed – the lot. As long as they’re in front of the right person at the right time they’ll work.
User ID not verified.