The advertising industry has lost its way. It’s obvious every time we turn on the TV or open the mailbox. But what makes today’s ads so bad? Recently, advertising industry veteran John Long took to Twitter to depress his fellow creatives illustrate how modern ads have lost their spark.
It all started with an innocuous little tweet on September 22 showing “How it started” versus “How it’s going”:
By October 10, Long had posted so many ad comparisons and generated such spirited conversation amongst his fellow creatives that people were asking him to compile all of his examples into a single thread:
The result is an entertaining and insightful read for advertising industry professionals and consumers alike — not only for the comparisons (many of which feature classic ads from storied brands), but also for the views and opinions of the industry folks who replied.
In what some may see as the thread’s Achilles heel, you will notice that many of the comparisons are between classic print ads and contemporary digital (banner) ads — largely, an apples-to-oranges proposition. When pressed on this, Long responded with a quote from advertising hall-of-famer Lee Clow:
“‘Everything is an ad, even the product’ — Lee Clow. That’s why you should judge a banner next to a print ad. The customer does.”
John Long via Twitter
Whether you agree with that or not, Long is absolutely correct when he criticizes today’s digital ads for lacking good copywriting and anything resembling a Big Idea.
Let’s look at some comparisons, shall we?
Example 1: Absolut vodka
On the left, a classic Absolut ad. On the right, a digital banner ad that makes me laugh out loud.
Part of it is the dumbed-down copy (“Delicious drinks, memorable moments”), but mostly, it’s the ridiculous call to action (CTA): “LEARN MORE.”
“Why yes, Absolute ad manager, I see your ad and I would like to learn more about your vodka!” 🤪
But remember, this is a digital ad that probably had to be produced in half a dozen sizes and formats. It is an ad for an entirely different time and place than the print ad on the left.
It is essentially a billboard. Its purpose is to put the brand name in front of as many eyeballs as possible and hopefully, recall positive experiences with the product (and remind prospects to pick up a bottle on their way home from work).
Example 2: BMW
Here’s another unfair fight. The BMW print ad on the left mimics Ogilvy’s classic ad formula: a large, attention-getting photo above a bold headline and long body copy. As you can see, it is glorious.
The ad on the right is another banner ad. Which of course is no excuse for the embarrassing headline or that anemic CTA.
Seriously, can you think of a lazier and less attractive line than “Learn more”? Yet, you see it everywhere. To me, its ubiquity is a sure sign that most banner ads are produced by entry-level digital marketing hires with little imagination and exactly zero copywriting background.
Example 3: Mercedes
Here is an apples-to-apples comparison that makes Long’s point. On the left, a Mercedes print ad. On the right, a Mercedes print ad.
Look at them. Just look at them. It’s as if the ad on the left was crafted by intelligent and thoughtful advertising professionals who knew and loved the product inside and out — and the ad on the right was carelessly thrown together by a high school burnout the night before it was due for marketing class.
Come on. With all of our advanced technology and accumulated knowledge, how can anyone justify the work on the right? Clearly, the state of the art in print advertising was reached in the 1990s (or whenever the ad on the left was produced), because the modern ad doesn’t even compare.
Example 4: Porsche
The ad on the left: Swoon. That body copy isn’t just sexy; it sells like the copywriter’s life depended on it.
The digital ad on the right? “DERP!”
Example 5: Harley Davidson
Please, take a moment to read the headline and body copy of the print ad on the left. If the headline alone doesn’t make you smile, then I don’t know what to tell you. Together, this image and few lines of copy perfectly evoke the free and rebellious spirit of Harley Davidson . . . or at least, the Harley Davidson that used to be.
The digital ad on the right? It doesn’t even have a proper logo.
And “Request a Quote” — another boilerplate CTA option seemingly selected from a static list of banal options coded into a template by a web developer without the first faltering clue about the brand he’s working for or what the hell he’s doing.
Except that’s not the case. Yeah, a copywriter actually “wrote” that and a designer actually designed that. (And a marketing manager actually approved that, and a brand manager . . .)
Devolution, indeed.
Example 6: Apple Macbook
Here’s another comparison that’s not really fair. The ad on the left is a print ad meant to promote the Apple brand as something greater than a computer manufacturer. It’s what we in the ad industry call “image” advertising.
The digital ad on the right is meant to sell Macbooks. In my opinion, both ads do their jobs equally well. In fact, I have little doubt that the digital ad sold more computers.
Example 7: Rolex
There’s been an annoying “shiny object” in the marketing world for the past many years, and it goes by the name of “storytelling.” Sometime around 2011, it was no longer enough for copywriters to call themselves copywriters. No, all of a sudden, you had to be a “storyteller” or a “content writer” with a big rubbery hard-on for “telling stories.”
Well, today’s “storytellers” can suck it because I haven’t seen a single one of them write a story that’s half as authentic as the story in the Rolex print ad at left. As Long himself said in one of his tweets, advertising may not be art, but it is commercial art — and the execution here is artful.
Oh, and the ad on the right is a total waste of a page.
Has digital advertising ruined advertising?
Many creatives today say the rise of digital advertising has hurt the industry and ruined the craft. I disagree. If anything, digital advertising has given marketers new ways to reach potential buyers and powerful analytics tools with which to measure the effectiveness of their work.
The apparent devolution of the creative work is a separate issue entirely.
Yes, there is a limit to what you can do in a 256-pixel square space. No, that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for good copywriting or a big selling idea.
At the same time, not every ad today needs to be a creative masterpiece that the advertising world will remember forever. Often, it’s good enough for an ad to get the number of clicks and conversions (sales) it needs to meet a predetermined sales goal.
Let me be clear: Digital advertising is not the problem.
The interest in data and results is not the problem.
So, what is the problem?
Why today’s advertising is so bad
I can think of several reasons why today’s advertising is so bad:
> Lazy creatives
> Risk-averse clients
> Meddlesome clients
> Consumers with tiny attention spans
> Digital ads being entrusted to “digital marketing specialists”
> The “production” mindset (yes, unfortunately encouraged by digital tools and processes)
> Creatives who think their job is to be clever, funny, or cool
> Social engineering rather than product promotion
> Political correctness
> An overcommunicated society
> The culture’s growing embrace of mediocrity
What other reasons can you think of? I look forward to reading your ideas in the comments below.
Thanks to John Long, executive creative director at LG Electronics, for starting such an interesting discussion!
See all Cranky ad reviews | Go to blog home page
To this day, I remember as a kid reading an ad for Paco Robanne in my dad’s GQ magazine. It was mesmerizing, brilliant, I felt moved, and incredibly curious about how a fragrance smelled that would warrant such an ad. Only as an adult in advertising, did I learn that it was the work of David Ogilvy.
For two years I took in interns, and literally had them do book reports. Ogilvy was required reading for them. Sadly when I was doing work for a client in Hollywood just a few years ago, with all due respect, I used his layout models verbatim, writing my own copy…and the client gasped with horror asking if I’d ever did design before. It wasn’t glitzy, it didn’t look like a movie poster. It didn’t matter that I was using tried and true principles. We had to totally redo it.
While I think there are several reasons for the slow decline in ad quality, and I agree with many stated here, I think the looming problem hiding in the shadows is the lack of honor. Honor and respect for those who have gone before us. The concept of mentoring has been dismissed and ignored in the name of access to whiz bang pow DIY design tools. The same can be said for digital marketing as a whole. You don’t design an ad with photoshop, illustrator or indesign, or even with a video editing suite, you design an ad with your brain, your heart and the audience in mind…with a pencil on paper. Every logo I do starts as an idea then a sketch. Building it in the computer is later. The computer is just a tool to finish an idea. And digital marketing is simply a new channel for marketing, not a new area to be specialized.
The advertising of today reminds me of adolescent children who’ve inherited their grandparents priceless heirloom (a strong legacy brand like Porsche or Rolex) and are tossing it around carelessly as they smash it into a wall. They see brands as entitled… simply deserving their customers because they’ve always been there, yet now, adding nothing to the building and preservation of the brand itself. The ads today are banal, vanilla, yawn worthy. Imagination and risk have died the same death as vintage metal playground equipment eschewing danger with over coddling, bubbly plastics, and must-have helmets for even riding a bike.
And it all matches perfectly with the wayward, convoluted, and wishy washy identity of this generation. Turns out we really do need respect for our elders, fathers and mentors to confer identity, and to leave political agendas out of advertising…who knew?
Apologies for length, maybe it’s time for my own blog. 😉
Brad, your comment fits wonderfully with a reply I just received from John Long on Twitter:
You’re right. Brands are like family heirlooms — and unfortunately, their value is lost on, or taken for granted by, many of today’s ad people.
Great points as always, Brad. Let me know if you ever do start a blog. I’d read it!
So beautifully stated. There are so many brands whose current ads seem determined to drive me away from their products. Liberty Mutual is possibly the worst offender, since nothing I see gives me any confidence in their management, but many others are just as bad. Nissan’s horrid sales event ads which pretend to be movie quality annoy me more than anything. Wendys recent crop seems unwilling to advertise their products, and sometimes fails to do anything to sell the name now, either. McDonalds seems determined to sell just the company name, but don’t try to give consumers who have been turned off by their products a reason to come back.
What I will say about all of the examples is that every one of the ads put some effort into focusing on the product, but the right side Mercedes ad bothered me in particular because it was focused too much on the ‘clever’ portmanteau, which was not clever and served to distracted from the otherwise prominently placed product. Apple’s think different ad was focused on the concept more than the product, but still effective, and I agree with your conclusion. The new ads absolutely lack the creativity of the older crop and don’t inspire confidence in the products.