Awoke this morning to closed schools and a prediction by Barclays that ad spending would be down by 10 percent next year, a revision downward from a prediction a mere two months ago of a 5.5 percent decline. At this point, having read so many of these spending predictions, I feel like we're all trapped in a game in which the winner is the advertising analyst who can predict the most doom-and-gloom. Maybe next week, ZenithOptimedia or someone will come out saying ad spending will be down 11 percent next year. Do I hear 12? Who's gonna predict 12?
The problem with these predictions of ad spending declines, of course, is that they're self-fulfilling. That has always been the case, but this time it's worse. Predicting that ad spending will be down by 10 percent seems to cause many to cut ad spending by 10 percent, like there's some unwritten rule they must follow along. I'm not saying things aren't bad out there: they are. But this is getting ridiculous. Thus, I hereby declare a moratorium on all ad spending predictions for 2009. We can pick up the topic again about a year from now.
Hi, loyal readers. You may wonder why Adverganza has been oddly quiet of late. The answer is that I've had a tsunami of work, which (all together now) especially in these troubles times, is taking priority. That doesn't mean I'm not posting at all, but that it's certainly more intermittent than I'd like.
While I could have been at the Interactive Advertising Bureau audience measurement conference, or at the UBS Global Media Conference watching the world crumble around me, I've been sitting at home these last few days. Actually, maybe that's not such a bad thing. However, had I gone to the IAB meeting, I could've heard IAB chief Randall Rothenberg decry the increasing complexity of online measurement. Sounding an alarming note, Rothenberg said: "What if [medical research] got so complex that doctors didn't know how to do operations? ... that's kind of where we're heading in interactive media and interactive media research." Citing a McKinsey & Co. study in which 80 percent of marketers admitted that much of their media decision-making was either guesswork or based on the previous year's numbers, Rothenberg said that there are only three conclusions which can be drawn from that fact. No. 1 was "All marketers are stupid," No. 2 was "All marketers are lazy." To see what no. 3 was, watch the clip above from 3 Minute Ad Age. You can guess which one Rothenberg chose.
So, how hilarious is it that now Axl Rose is asking Dr Pepper to apologize for hijacking the Guns n' Roses brand in the name of free soda? If you've been living in a dumpster, maybe you don't know that Dr Pepper years ago said it would offer everyone in the U.S. a can of free soda if the band ever released another album, which it did last week, 17 years after the last one.
Now, according to Ad Age, lead singer/procrastinator extraordinaire Rose had his lawyer send Dr Pepper a letter which " ... stated that Dr Pepper's campaign had exploited the singer's reputation and the 'eagerly awaited' album, and stated that payment would be sought for the unauthorized use of the Guns N' Roses brand." Sheesh. Axl, I got some news for ya: you exploited your own reputation by setting a new world's record for length of time between albums. The soda didn't make you do it.
Apparently the letter goes to great lengths to portray the Dr Pepper promotion as a failure because it was actually hard to get the free can of soda. True. But I still think the lovely loopiness of the promotional idea outweighs the frustration on the part of some consumers. It was sheer genius, marred by an executional hiccup. From what I've read, the album, "Chinese Democracy," doesn't rise to the same standard.
--Axe men's haircare products launch. Subscription required. Because I know you're dying to see it, here's one of the ads (though in the pantheon of great Axe commercials, it's a little disappointing):
Woo. I work faster when I've had a decent amount of sleep. I know that's shocking. Have a good day, which may be possible only by not repeatedly checking the Dow.
OK, let's get today's Motrin controversy out of the way. (Well, I guess it started this weekend, but I wasn't wearing my baby, who now weighs just under 45 pounds; we were cleaning the house.) Although there are about 400 links one could choose from to outline the controversy, I'll do it for you here in three simple visuals. One, the ad about "baby-wearing" that got a lot of mothers tied up in their Baby Bjorns:
The offending ad, probably not conceived (forgive the pun) by a mother, was from Taxi NYC. Now, here's one of the many YouTube responses about the ad, a nine-minute montage, mainly consisting of tweets expressing outrage about the ad, to the strains of, inexplicably, "Ol' Danny Boy." (Watch about 45 seconds, and I assure you, you'll get the point.)
I'll admit I don't really know what to make of all this since this silly little ad isn't the kind of thing that gets me all excited, even as the mother of the two greatest children in the world. Someone poisoning the Tylenol? Now that's a problem. Was the Motrin ad snarky? Hell, yeah. But the angry response to it seems out of line with what it represented. Had it not rained all weekend--at least on the east coast--would the outcry have been more muted because more of us Moms would have been at the playground instead of hanging out on Twitter? Maybe what Motrin is learning here, and what other marketers will as well, is just what can happen when you put production and distribution tools in the hands of everybody. When everybody gets mad, they don't know when to stop.