As budgets have slowly been shifting from TV to online for video, clients still have not been making the same effort to change what those videos are about, pushing the old-style TV ads that sell, sell, sell, and yell at the customer about their product or how awesome they are at the viewer, verses making something that someone will want to be interrupted by.
And I say interrupted because online video is most often found on pages where someone is trying to read an article, before viewing the video they actually want to see, after playing a turn in a free version of a game downloaded to their phone/tablet, etc.
In the Age of Delightenment, the standard type of TV spot will not do in the online space.
So, until the content of these videos change, the impact will not be seen in the ROI. (OMG, did I just say "ROI"? What's going on here? Lol)
+ Today and tomorrow, Supreme Court is looking at two cases about marriage equality. They are looking at Prop 8 from California and if the federal Defense of Marriage Act wrongly denies married gay couples equal benefits.
These are issues that effect friends and family. And typically, I don't blog about political things here.
But the fact that there is even a question about the constitutional validity of DOMA is laughable.
This nation went through something similar in the past. Segregation and "Separate but equal" didn't work then. Why would it work now?
I am married to a man, but I was not married by a person of the church. A good friend married me and my husband, with the power of the State and permission from the governor (and as special as that sounds, it's a common occurrence).
But am I still married? Some would say yes, because it's between a man and a woman. Sacred blah blah blah. Ok, so yeah. Sure, look at all the 1-month Hollywood marriages and folks like Limberg and others who completely desecrate their marriages. They sure are upholding some special, sacred thing. *cough*
Honestly I'd be fine if anyone married under the church is considered "marriage" and anyone married under the state is a "civil union", which is what my marriage would be. But the rights and privileges would have to be the same.
But, my bigger concern is how folks talk of freedom and take it away from those who don't share the same opinion. People who love each other and decides to have a life together has nothing to do with someone else not in that relationship. It is also a direct barring of their freedom as a human being and as an American. You can't say you love freedom but then claim that your opinion on something is more valid than the freedoms of others. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what we are talking about here. Not ideologies and religion.
Let's get over this issue and focus on the ones that really matter. Education, economic stability and so many more other pressing things than getting involved in someone else's love life.
+"For this project, there's no creative. Just copy."
If you've ever heard that phrase, or a similar variation on it, you probably work in a digital agency. And you're probably a copywriter. And it probably is like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard.
It's funny how in some cases, the digital world still doesn't understand the value of copy vs. design. In comparison to a traditional agency, copywriters in digital agencies tend to be seen as less important. Many places have crazy art to copy ratios, bringing in freelancers and contractors when necessary.
Some of this is baggage carried over from the early formation of the web when it was driven more by designers and coders. Copy was secondary to knowing how to create a gif and putting the code together for the design. But, the funny thing is, unlike traditional TV or print...it's a lot harder to have anything digital without copy and strong calls to action. So, to me, this makes little sense. And especially when calling out creative but not including copy in that statement...it's all creative.
Beyond the words, copywriters are idea-birthers. They should be involved from the beginning of the process. There's no reason you would have a designer go work in a corner and a copywriter in the other and then have them bring their work together like some twisted death match. The best work (and this is something many digital agencies can learn from the traditional shops) comes from collaboration. From teamwork. Why concept disappeared as advertising moved to the digital side of things, I'm not quite sure. But it's time to bring it back. And look at the new creative team overall.
Agencies that use this model with their creative teams will be doing work that is better and smarter.
+ Every holiday we see it. Ads that tout stuff like "This St. Patrick's Day" or "This Mother's Day" in headlines all over the place. Is there a reason we need to use "this"? How about "for" instead?
Are you afraid I might see your ad and think it's for next mother's day? Or, perhaps you might mean last Mother's Day. Honestly, it peeves me to no end.
It's not necessary and just makes your copy longer, without good reason. So let's please just cut it out.
+ When the idea of Social Media came on the scene from an advertising and marketing perspective, it was seen as a new medium. Media is defined as "the means of communication that reach or influence people widely." So, I guess I can see why the word "media" was tacked on to it. But, we don't call out other media in a same way...it's not newspaper media, TV media or digital media. So, why are people hung up on using it with social?
Social really has nothing to do with paid media. Yes, yes, it can, but not exclusively, so that's a point of confusion for some people.
Social is all about being social. Not media (paid or otherwise).
Dictionary.com has the following definitions for social:
so·cial
[soh-shuhl]
–adjective
1. pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations: a social club.
2. seeking or enjoying the companionship of others; friendly; sociable; gregarious.
3. of, pertaining to, connected with, or suited to polite or fashionable society: a social event.
4. living or disposed to live in companionship with others or in a community, rather than in isolation: People are social beings.
5. of or pertaining to human society, especially as a body divided into classes according to status: social rank.
6. involved in many social activities: We're so busy working, we have to be a little less social now.
7. of or pertaining to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community: social problems.
8. noting or pertaining to activities designed to remedy or alleviate certain unfavorable conditions of life in a community, especially among the poor.
9. pertaining to or advocating socialism.
10. Zoology . living habitually together in communities, as bees or ants. Compare solitary ( def. 8 ) .
11. Botany. growing in patches or clumps.
12. Rare. occurring or taking place between allies or confederates.
–noun
13. a social gathering or party, especially of or as given by an organized group: a church social.
The first two definitions, and last one as a noun, are the ones that are most relevant. It's about connecting and bringing people with like interests together.
So where does the media part of this phrase fit into this? It doesn't really. Sure, there is using social networks as a earned media platform, and use of digital (and even traditional) media to drive traffic to those places in social networks where brands are hanging out. But that does not justify using the word media to encompass the whole of Social.
I really would love to see the evolution where we start calling it "Social". It's much more inclusive of the larger array of items that comprise it. It just makes sense.
Will 2011 be the year we make the switch? I hope so.
+ You've been there. You're sitting there, taking in the news, your favorite show, your indulgent viewing of something you'd never admit to watching...and then, there among the OK ads and the ones you just block out...it hits you. You want to throw something through your slender flatscreen HD TV. But darn it if there's nothing within reach to throw. And then, you think about it...having to fork over more cash for a new TV wouldn't be so bright either.
All this for a crappy ad that some how effects you in a super negative way.
Right now, that ad for me is a spot for State Farm. You can watch it below.
We open on a setting that claims to be a brasserie, a bakery, a boulangerie, bistoit (bistro), cafe...I mean really? Granted, I can't make too much fun of it in relation to this ad because it's a real place in Los Angeles. But it seems excessive.
Anyway, the main character starts the ad off, talking to no one--looking off camera. The camera then zooms in on a guy sitting doing a crossword or something and looks at the main character like he's crazy. He really looks concerned for this guy, and scared for himself. Although, finding a guy talking to himself shouldn't be anything new in Hollyweird.
Then our main character walks into the cafe, getting in the way of the staff. The camera then pans around the cafe--FOR NO REASON--following different workers, while the guy blathers on. What is with the sweep view of the place? It's completely disconnected to anything else going on in the ad. Thankfully this isn't a 60 second spot that makes us endure any more of the weird camera angles and following random staff around as they "do their job" seems even more awkward. It's like they are saying, "We really don't have anything of value to tell you so we're going to distract you with visual randomness." Makes...me...want...to...poke...out...eyes...with...spoon!
