Advertising: Who Cares? Onwards.

In April, Nick Manning and I started a grassroots movement called ‘Advertising: Who Cares?’ (AWC) because of a number of serious, even existential, threats to not only the craft but ultimately the business of advertising.

We feel that the obsession with short-term metrics, the lack of transparency in media trading, the lack of trust between advertiser and agency and the tremendous power wielded by the online platforms all contribute to a state of affairs that delivers ads that few like, and that often don’t work.

We bombard our audiences and don’t respect their privacy, time and attention. We serve up irrelevant, intrusive ads in profuse numbers.

Huge value is lost every day to ads that no one sees or hears and to pure fraud. A lot of money, time and effort is wasted on advertising that is simply invisible, or criminal.

Measurement is a muddle. Audience measurement, once non-controversial and based on gold-standard methodologies now uses the same words to mean different things. Effectiveness measures regularly conflate long-term brand-building with the short-term and immediate.

One consequence of all of this is that advertising has become a less attractive industry to work in, and to join.

Another consequence is that in obsessing over audience numbers we’ve set aside the connection between advertising investment and original, creative and effective paid-for media communications.

This connection serves a dual function. It helps fund a healthy, quality media eco-system that serves the public well. It also provides larger, more diverse audiences across a multiplicity of vehicles.

Currently, those media providing the highest quality content are losing ad revenue to platforms who create no content at all and where the ad environment is inferior.

Addressing this would direct money to well-resourced news reporting, where objectivity and truth are vital. It stops adspend funding mis- and dis-information.

We believe that advertising and the industry as a whole has a responsibility to add to people’s general well-being. It is not just there to provide advertisers with a competitive advantage.

In September we put on an event for those who care. It sold out, was well-received and has led to a lot of commentary, as well as podcast and conference appearances where the natural question was: ‘Now what?’

‘Now what?’ indeed. We’ve listened to all the comments, the positive and the (few) negative; we’ve consulted with our supporter base; we’ve spoken with the key contributors to the September event and we’re now ready to reveal the next stage in the Who Cares? journey.

One key lesson from the September event is that everything is connected. The cogs in the machine all work together.

From a set of outdated business models flows poor remuneration for agencies. From poor agency remuneration, agencies seek non-transparent revenue streams from suppliers including broadcasters/publishers. Revenues from suppliers lead to a lack of objectivity. A lack of objectivity leads to a lack of trust. A lack of trust inhibits anything daring or new and encourages the dull and the safe. Dull advertising is not attractive to consumers (if they even notice it). Media strategies based on an unthinking maximising of impressions means we bombard consumers with these unattractive messages. This is unpopular and leads to a diminution in the trust consumers feel for ads. Meantime, adspend flows to those media vehicles who rely on user-generated content, with a poor ad environment and, at the extreme, content which inflames societal turmoil.

Add it all up and you have campaigns that don’t work and are not worth paying for. Which leads us back to the business model issue.

This starts within advertisers themselves, and senior management who are often incentivised for share price growth rather than true business gains. If cuts are necessary to move the share price, advertisers inevitably seek unrealistic economies from their service providers.

Of course there are exceptions to this bleak picture, as awards ceremonies and effectiveness studies show, but the great examples we all applaud within the industry are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what the public is subjected to, day-in, day-out.

We need to recognise, and then break this circle of ineffectiveness and inefficiency.

This has to start with the business models that have led us here. This includes the buy-side models of advertiser and agency behaviour and the sell-side models that dictate media vendor and adtech ways of working.

We have to be radically honest about how our industry really works if we are to start reconstructing it to be better. We have to redefine advertising’s role in today’s (and tomorrow’s) world.

We believe that advertising can play a significant role in shaping the future when it is responsible, intelligently designed, executed and is welcomed by its audiences.

We need to champion the principles of good, effective advertising that people value. We need to promote the great thinking and execution that leads to better advertising and a better industry for people today and tomorrow.

These principles have to be supported by evidence, case studies, data and research; in short, the facts that support the case for better advertising. We need to demonstrate that such principles lead to success with responsibility and then make the case frequently and consistently to advertisers at all levels but particularly CMO, CFO and CEO.

Much can flow from there, like accreditation systems and ISO-style standards.

Luckily, we don’t have to start from scratch. The trade bodies, the media marketing organisations, conferences, pressure groups, academics, professors, even trade titles all do good work, but what they do is inevitably driven either by single-issues or by vested interests. Sometimes these interests compromise the need for radical honesty about the business models that distort our industry.

There’s a lack of joined-up thinking, and much that is neither honest nor objective. This limits what can be achieved.

We have to identify the vested interest behind the ostensibly impartial.

Our ambitious aim is to pull together a central repository of evidence that sets out the principles of great advertising and its benefits – across every aspect of the industry, everywhere.  A ‘best practice’ guide that aims to offer practical advice, not just theory.

A set of evidence-based principles that exists without fear or favour and which acknowledges the business models that determine current behaviours.

We care about advertising and the advertising and media industries; we care about the symbiotic relationship between effective advertising and a healthy, pluralistic media eco-system

We think advertising should be properly and quantifiably valued. We want to rebalance the debate around the long-term benefits of craft and experience, across all disciplines.

We will be producing updates and articles / blog posts as we go; and will aim at a second event in Q4 2025.

Our aim is to provide reliable, lasting building blocks, to ensure that the buildings designed by practitioners are as good as they can be.

We will be publishing more details of the subject areas we intend to include, and who will be leading them shortly. Fortunately for us all the workstream leaders from our efforts so far have agreed to continue to help.

We are under no illusions about the scale of this task, and we know it will take a lot of effort from a lot of people who care. As Artificial Intelligence develops, there is a risk that the advertising industry succumbs to automation rather than uses it as a tool for the creation of effective and engaging advertising. We should aim to preserve an industry where human values come first.

‘Advertising: Who Cares?’ is a movement to help the advertising industry retain its economic and societal values into the future.

We are thrilled at how many people do care. We want to encourage as many people as possible, from every corner of the industry to join us. If you care, do please sign up, and suggest doing so to others too. It’s free and you can do it from our site: www.advertisingwhocares.org.

Onwards.

|
|
|
|
2 Comments
  1. A few observations that are not meant to be too critical nor judgemental.
    1. There needs to be more recognition that much of the so-called slop that people see today whether on digital platforms or indeed linear TV is for small scale advertisers who are quite happy to deliver brochureware. The simple TV ads for funeral services, for example, might well be absolutely right for the audience. To lump all advertisers into one big pot and expect them to aim for some high creative standard is old style arrogance. (Reminds me how in the past some agencies would sneer at work which they felt did not pass their definition of creativity.)
    2. The likes of P&G have no interest in media companies’ measurements as they know it’s rubbish. Instead over the years they’ve built their own data to measure metrics like reach – but ultimately all they’re interested in is results. So any change on their part comes only from output not input.
    3. The major challenge is how to persuade advertisers to find the right balance between performance and long-term brand building goals when over the last decade or so they’ve become cynical about agencies rattling on about ‘story-telling’ and the need to tell emotionally-ridden narratives. Indeed is there a right balance?
    4. Which leads to thoughts like where is retail media in all this? Or sales promotion? Or direct marketing. There are still a good few brands who think retail media is the most critical touch-point and that the money-off coupon is still the most effective way to change consumer
    behaviour. And it’s all advertising in the end. Isn’t it? (Unless this end of the business is seen as being a bit grubby. Another old-fashioned view of looking at the world.)
    5. Final point. There is a danger of falling into the trap of thinking all demographics think and react to advertising in the same way. My 21 year-old son has a completely different mind set. (This is not just anecdotal.) His relationship is with new brands, who do stuff outside the conventional marketing norms that fill the pages of the trade press or get given the awards at Cannes. (I got him and his mates to look at some of the 2024 Cannes winners and they were just bemused. Even getting them to look at something for longer than 10 seconds was tough. That’s why pop music is like it is now. No long intros – if it doesn’t grab you in 10 seconds then they skip to the next track.)

    Hopefully this is coherent. As an old fart, the small comment box is not the easiest to write-in.

  2. Hi Graham
    Thanks for taking the trouble to comment.
    Much of what you say we both agree with. I know there’s a temptation to look back – as John Hegarty said when he agreed to help us: ‘On the one condition that this doesn’t become a nostalgia-fest!’
    There are many thousands of small and mid sized businesses who use social media highly successfully, and have done for years. But I suspect they wouldn’t be happy with the degree of fraud and money wasted on so much online media. Creativity runs through everything we do but there are matters like fraud, transparency in trading and accountability that will appeal as much to your funeral director as to the P&Gs of this world.
    Talking of whom, I’m not sure I agree. They’ve certainly built their own models and so on, but everything has been based on industry data. They rely on it as much as anybody else (I worked on their business for about 14 years, all over the world).
    On retail etc we don’t differentiate by channel – the principles apply as much to the small DR guys as to Facebook.
    By the way if you watch the sizzle reel we showed at our launch event we feature all sorts of media, including coupons, mobile, SM, bus-sides and so on.
    We also have a whole workstream on recruitment. One quote, from a business studies undergrad who was interviewed as part of our workstream said: ‘Why would I want to join an industry that bombards me with rubbish?’
    We have set ourselves a very ambitious task. And we need a lot of help. We need experienced people, younger professionals just starting out, and as diverse a group as we can muster. 
    It would be great if you felt able to join us and encourage others to do so. The way to do that is via our site: http://www.advertisingwhocares.org.
    All the best.
    BRIAN

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *