Should Advertisers Risk Offending to Enlighten?

When researching for my Independent Project, I came across an article debating whether advertisers should shock people in order to create awareness. The example they used above is an awareness campaign by Cordaid, for third world poverty. Although the ad does shock you, I think that it shocks people into realisation, and thus successfully affecting the audience's views- a key aim in charity awareness campaigns. However I do think offensive material is an important consideration for advertisers, as it should be avoided in order to not create a negative reaction from the target audience.

Product Placement: UPDATE

After my previous blog entry about 'Product Placement in the UK', there have been some dramatic changes! Today I heard on the news that the Government has lifted the ban on product placement, thus changing the future of British TV forever. I wonder why the government made this major U-turn in their views of product placement, as my last blog entry on this subject discussed, they previously seemed really against the idea. Perhaps it's the £100 million a year that this move will be worth to commercial channels- an economic boost they could all do with in the current situation.

There are some exceptions however. The BBC will still be prevented from using product placement, but do still benefit from the change as it will reduce the pressure on the BBC to share its £3.6 billion income from the license fee. Another exception will also be children's TV.

I think if done well, this will certainly have a positive impact for both advertisers and broadcasters, not only because of the large amounts of money it will bring in, but also because of the self-scheduling method of watching TV that is becoming more and more literal. Many digital packages such as Sky+ allow viewers to fast-forward commercial ad breaks, making them less successful for advertisers, and therefore making less money for broadcasters too. Product placement could therefore open doors for advertisers and broadcasters where others are being closed- there couldn't be a better time for it.

The Shock Tactic in Advertising... UPDATE

Just read Elizabeths Pisani's view on this advertisement in the Guardian, who objects to the ad but not due to the shock tactic. She points out the inaccuracies of the ad- 500 people died if Aids in Germany in 2007, which is no where near as many people as Hitler killed. She also points out that "almost all sexual transmission of HIV in white communities in Western Europe is between [gay] men", so targeting straight women will hardly reduce the risk of HIV in gay men. The advertising agency 'Das Comitee' who did the campaign did it unpaid- perhaps this accounts for the lack of research into who they should be targeting? unless the brief stated it of course... Pisani also argues that HIV is no longer even a mass murderer in rich, developed countries, and more an "inconvenient disease that will have you taking pills for the rest of your life [and] cost taxpayers lots of money".
If the agency simply did this to promote themselves, and saw it as an opportunity to create a shock-campaign in order to receive world-wide media coverage, it definitely worked.

Ambient Advertising

UKTV channel Dave recent advertising campaign...

The marketing people behind the UKTV channel Dave recently came up with an ambient marketing campaign, just in time for this years channel of the year awards. They placed a couple of old brown suitcases, presented with stickers on them reading "The case for Dave", onto baggage carousels at Edinburgh airport. They were heaved off, and on again, over and over. Although being the perfect time of the year for the use of this location for a campaign, I wonder why they only did it in one airport, and not in others and train stations. However, I also don't admire the campaign much for lack of creativity, and realise maybe the campaign wasn't very successful and so resulting in no further coverage.

I found this much more creative Dave campaign from last summer to promote the "summer of funshine" schedules, which will see great British comedy series, such as Blackadder, Open All Hours and The Vicar Of Dibley, broadcast every evening. The campaign says much more about the channel's personality, involved the public directly and was more widespread. The initial aim was to sponsor students as human billboards, and to stencil faces of British comedy onto their back. However, as the campaign became more widespread, anyone and everyone who wanted to get involved could. This campaign appears much more thought through- it's fun and links to the promotion directly, while in keeping with the summer spirit and British comedy.

American Apparel Ad Ban in the UK

I have just read in an online news article, that the UK advertising standards authority have made the decision to ban a campaign by American Apparel retails. This was due to a series of photos of a model who appeared to be under the age of 16, who was stripping off for what looked like an amateur porn shoot.
The ban came after the ASA received a complaint on the campaign, that it was offensive, unsuitable for younger audiences, and inappropriate, as the model appeared young and vulnerable. American Apparel defended the ad, by saying the model was supposed to be perceived as a 23-year old woman, relaxing in her hoody around her apartment, in order to reflect the soft-to-touch material. The ASA agreed that they had not breached any of the advertising codes on nudity, but banned the ad on the basis of the model appearing to be under 16, and progressively showing more and more flesh through the series of photos. They concluded that the ad could create serious offense for some readers.
Although the ad doesn't show much nudity, I can definitely see why it could cause offense, as the girl does appear to be very young and naive, and rather vulnerable to the situation. American Apparel have created a lot of controversy over their sexual campaigns in the past, so this comes as no surprise to me.

Advertorials

The Line Between Editorial and Advertising.

'Supplementary Income' The Media Guardian, 31/08/09

Advertorials are becoming more common and increasingly subtle, resulting in many initially being confused with journalism articles rather than a promotion. The Daily Express was heavily criticised earlier this month by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Watchdog, for disguising advertorials as news stories (the Goldshield Rozip advertorial pictured below). It is within the ASA code that all advertising features must be clearly labelled as an advertisement.

Despite this criticism of the Express as a result of advertorials, as marketing budgets become more strained, advertisers who are looking for better ways to make brands stand out are increasingly turning to advertorials. Justine Southall, publishing director of Cosmopolitan, says that last year was their best ever for advertorial features, and that this year they are on a similar track. Southall recognises the importance of the relationship between the reader and advertiser, as it can also effect attitudes towards the magazine. All advetorials must be clearly labelled, "[including] making sure the point size of the 'Cosmopolitan Promotion' is clearly legible." She also recognises that other publishers may be purposfully disguising promotions with unclear advertisement labelling, due to the current economic conditions, and says that "this is really dangerous for the long-term health of a brand."

Advertisers are not attracted to the fact that readers may be put off reading an advertorial if it is labelled as an advert, and are so looking for alternative methods of attatching brands to editorial. But feature editors themselves are very warey of getting carried away, and ensure not to push too many products into editorial spaces, in order to avoid annoying readers.

In conclusion I think it is both advertiser's and media owner's responsibility to manage the line between advertisements and editorials. Advertisers must satisfy the ASA's code, and journalists must control the level and amount of advertorials readers are presented with. It will also be interesting in the future to see what new ways advertisers will be linking brands to editorials.

Product Placement in the UK

The ban of product placement is viewed as a problem by many advertisers and broadcasters, especially since Andy Burnham, then the culture secretary, earlier this year said that the ban would continue for UK television. He said it would blur the boundaries between advertising and content, and his "priority has always been to make sure we maintain levels of trust between audiences and broadcasters, and protect the standards of broadcasting for which Britain is known worldwide." Cody Hogarth, managing director of New State (Endamol's branded content division), backs up Burnham's decision by saying: "I don't think we'd ever find a commissioner who would take a programme that had product placement all over it."

The Conservative party however, has a different view, as they say they would relax the product placement rules- Ed Vaizey, the shadow minister for culture says "We don't think that product placement is a panacea for all the ills of commercial broadcasting. But we do believe that we should relax the rules." It has been estimated that product placement in the UK could be worth between £40m and £70m a year. Vaizey says "we also trust the broadcasters to understand their audience."

All parties also recognise that UK viewers are already viewing heavy product placement in programmes imported from the US. Mark Eaves (managing director for Drum PHD media agency) says "we either level the playing field or we take steps against imported programmes and series."

I know there has been concern about whether UK audiences would react well to product placement in programmes, but as Eaves points out, we are already used to it from the imports. Surely the decision should be whether we allow them on all programming, or not at all. However, Rabin Mukerjea, partner at the Grand Central Entertainment content agency, disagrees with this. "If there was a way of us fast forwarding, we could do what the US does- right now we'd be starting from year dot, so how long it would take to learn that lesson I don't know." Mukerjea argues that it's not a case of either having it everywhere or not at all. It would be something that programmers would have to ease into, with a risk of how audiences would react- US audiences are used to it everywhere as it blends into backgrounds. But product placement may stand out and distract audiences in the UK.

Advertiser-Funded Programming

Is AFP the answer for both Advertisers AND Broadcasters?

After reading an article in The Guardian's 27/07/09 Media supplement, it got me thinking about a method of advertising I previously knew little about. This is probably due to the fact that it is a method of advertising that is not widely used, but as the article suggested, it could become a more popular technique, with advantages to both advertisers AND television broadcasters.
Although Advertiser Funded Programming (AFP) has been around since the first American radio soap operas in the 1930s, few advertisers have chosen this method to reach their audiences due to the lack of clear marketing value. However, with the current economical situation, and the recent interactive technological developments, AFP could be the answer that both advertisers and broadcasters are looking for.

Commissioners were initially concerned whether AFP could deliver quality programming, which meant for many years it was considered as a risky choice for broadcasters. Earlier this month however, Nintendo and Channel Five announced a new prime time AFP show they are planning to launch- 'Britain's Best Brain'. The software company Sage also funded the majority of ITV's first prime time AFP last October- 'The Krypton Factor'.

David Brennon, research and strategies manager for the TV marketing body Thinkbox, says AFP will become a more widely used marketing meothd, as although "total sponsorship is estimated at £200m, and AFP is a small subsection of that at the moment... it will surely grow as brands see the power of association." This introduces the idea that more advertisers may recognise AFP as a method of advertising that they could benefit from. For example, target audiences will associate Nintendo DS with 'Britain's Best Brain', which will reinforce its brand profile as an intellectual and "brain training" product.

AFP could also be the answer to the decreasing television programming budgets. Mark Eaves, managing director of Drum PHD (the media agency behind the Krypton Factor deal), says that despite commissioning budgets already being driven towards peak-time terrestrial, "everyone is under pressure now, so any content with new funding is quite welcome."

Is AFP really a good deal for advertisers though? In an AFP deal it is the broadcaster who has the creative control. And with product placement banned in the UK, at the price of some, if not all the production costs, exclusive ads and a mention in the credits has often been considered as not a great side of the deal for advertisers. However, the recent digital interactive developments are making AFP more attractive, as it's moved on from the flat deal of advertisers investing large sums of money with little marketing value in return. Through the medium of the programme and anchoring material, specific audiences can be reached by advertisers through direct links to the brand. For example, a link on ITV.com's Krypton Factor page takes you to Sage's Trainyourbrain.com, offering mental games based on the Krypton Factor style, while promoting the brand. There is also the interactive support of the red button for Sky and digital users, and of course forever developing technology could open up many more interactive options.

Although the current economical situation and recent technological advances would suggest AFP offers many benefits to both advertisers and broadcasters, it's still too risky to jump into. Time and trial are the best measures of success for the method, especially as audience responses are an important consideration, and with current concern as to whether viewers would reject ad-funded programmes.

Christian Louboutin spring/summer 2009 ad campaign

Fashion ad campaigns are becoming much more than just photo shoot photography of skinny models in expensive clothes. This Spring/Summer, Christian Louboutin has launched a new campaign, resembling the artistic influence of the Baroque era. Peter Lippmann, the still life photographer behind the campaign, has taken inspiration from 17th-18th artworks, particularly painters of the Dutch Golden Age. The shoes have been arranged in still life to resemble classic paintings. I love the unique take on this fashion campaign as, although the style itself is not unique in the art culture, for fashion it is a very original angle. If I were to come up with this concept, particularly for fashion, I would worry that the old fashioned style would create similar impressions of the shoes. However, it has been carried out beautifully, and represents the brand of Christian Louboutin, and Baroque art beautifully.

Fashion Sex Campaigns

For a long time advertising campaigns have used sex as a theme to sell, particularly for fashion campaigns where they aim to represent people as sexy. However as some of these that I have found show, it can often be taken too far.

Below is an image from a 2007 Dolce and Gabana campaign, which was heavily criticised for glorifying gang rape. This lead to the campaign being banned in Italy.Much more provocative, is the 2007 Tom Ford for Men campaign below. To me this campaign offers little creative imagination, and is just using the woman's body in a tacky and distasteful way, at an attempt to clearly try and be controversial. Tom Ford supported the campaign by saying its sexy, which I definitely disagree with. This one, believe it or not, is one of the tamer images that have been used for the campaign.

In my view, a lot of these campaigns are deliberately ignoring advertising standard's regulations, and creating media hype in order to create maximum awareness and coverage for the brand. A lot of them probably aim to get banned, and make it a competition to see which can be the most controversial.