Hey! That’s A Good Point!
January 29, 2008
We’d like to start today off with a simple shout-out to Beyond Madison Advertising for their post titled, “Not Everyone Is An Upscale Urban, 20something, Male, Hipster.”
“Now this theory is fine when you’re advertising beer or running shoes. But since most products advertised aren’t beer or running shoes, we quickly find ourselves in trouble: we’re talking with one voice to an audience who speaks with another. And whether it’s TV, print or online (okay, especially online), the messages we’re putting out there are “we don’t really know you, our customers. We don’t really care what you think is cute or funny or emotional. We only care what’s cool and hip (by our standards) so get used to it.”
Head over to the actual piece to read the rest of the gems. Berlin Cameron? We’re looking at you.
January 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm
You should be looking at Crispin, too.
January 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm
There are a lot of places to look, and it makes my eyes hurt if I stare.
January 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Funny, I thought the article was talking about Crispin, too.
THey’re the best agency in the world at talking to 20-30 year old white males.
And possibly the worst at talking to anyone else.
January 29, 2008 at 4:35 pm
legit point, it happens, but he WAY overexaggerates the percentage of ads that fall in this category. lucky if it reaches 10%. check out daytime tv, not a hipster in sight.
January 29, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Hey Spy– thanks for the shoutout – I’ve been writing at BMA for about a month now, in addition to my regular Toad Stool blog. And though the whole “Not Everyone Is An Upscale Urban 30something White Male Hipster” thing is a not infrequent feature on my blog and my DailyFix column, the BMA post seems to have hit a nerve. Different audience, I guess.
@RT: Exaggeration as a rhetorical tool. It’s less about the actual number of ads that fit that description as it is the way that aesthetic is our sole definition of what constitutes “good” advertising. As in what you see in the award show books.
January 29, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Ads are created that way because they’re made by a bunch of upscale urban 30something white male hipsters, chosen by creative directors and account folks who are or wish they were, and then judged in award shows by upscale urban 30something white male hipsters, which rewards the whole practice.
But i’m totally different. I’m a 29 year old white male urban nerd who could afford to be upscale but would rather live on the budget he lived on in college.
January 29, 2008 at 7:59 pm
@toad: i hear ya. but by that logic, you’re also saying a very tiny percentage of ads are “good” (in the hipster sense), while the hugely vast majority of ads are the middle-of-the-road/boring type that actually connect with joe six-pack consumer and actually sell product. in which case…um, it isn’t that compelling a point. also, it’s kinda tired to blame all industry woes on awards shows. who cares?
January 29, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Shitty movies sell tickets. Does that make them good movies?
Award shows are there to honor and promote original, interesting, and innovative thinking. At least theoretically.
They’ve never been about what the public likes the best. They’ve been about pushing the industry forward. What will the public like the best 5 years from now? That’s the question.
January 29, 2008 at 8:53 pm
@whome?: i agree 100% with your second and third points, but you’re mistaken on the first one. i was using “good” in toad’s original context (eg, hipster created/approved), not good as in having substance/quality.
January 29, 2008 at 9:50 pm
@RT & WhoMe: Do award shows really reward “original, interesting, and innovative thinking?”
Or do they (mainly) reward work that, while certainly excellent, also spits back the formula-du-jour?
I’m by no means suggesting that we reward or acclaim trite or clichéd advertising ideas. Just noting that there are valid aesthetics beyond the prevailing one.
January 29, 2008 at 10:27 pm
cool. but i dunno, i’m just not feeling your whole “prevailing aesthetic” point. seems like you are taking the approach of a tiny (tiny) sub-set of ads and presenting them as some sort of common practice. maybe i’m just thick, but i don’t see it.
January 29, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Not sure why this thread turned into an award show critique, but what the hell-
The top award shows are important. They push good agencies and good creatives to continually do better work in an industry that greatly rewards mediocrity.
Also, clients that respect compelling ideas do pay attention to who is winning awards. It’s not the most important factor, but it is a factor.
Saying “We don’t want to win awards, we want to sell product” is a disingenuous argument, as there is no dichotomy between the two. And if all you really want to do is sell product, just sell all your products for dirt cheap. Smart, compelling ideas add intangible value to a brand, which results in people willing to pay a higher price.
With that said, it is really sad how many fake ads end up in award shows. And i think it’s also totally fair to say that there are alot of award-winning formulaic ads that you see over and over again in some shows. I think they need better judges.
January 30, 2008 at 12:22 am
@s.copywriter: some awards shows/juries are better than others. i like this perspective: http://www.clioawards.com/juries/index.cfm?juryid=2
January 30, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Toad,
Hence why I caveated with “At least theoretically”
In practice, it sometimes doesn’t work that way. But that doesn’t mean the whole concept is flawed. We just need to be tougher judges, both of what’s real/fake and of what’s just following a formula.