ad•ver•tise

At this week's creative conference in Los Angeles much was said about the future of creativity in our business. Adweek reports that Lee Clow stated an agency's product would no longer be defined as "advertising" but rather "media arts." This falls in line with what lots of agencies are saying these days, such as they don't develop ads anymore but rather "creative content." Some agencies today only talk about "ideas" and cast advertising as a bad word. Everyone is captivated by the new and the different.

This is all very intelligent thinking, and we need to constantly challenge the status quo. But I think it's all still "advertising." Consider the official definition of "advertise": "describe or draw attention to (a product, service or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance."

Some Reminders

The first advertising medium was word-of-mouth. Not much of a career for early ad execs. The earliest of entrepreneurs just had to make good kilts and swords and word would travel.

The second was outdoor--or, I guess wall art--found in ancient Egypt and classic Rome. This added art and writing, or in other words, creativity and concise messaging. A big leap.

Next in Western Civilization came newspaper and magazines. Now advertisers had to consider portability and audience targeting. Significant. 

Then came radio which added sound, music and passive exposure. Then came Television with motion, product demonstration and mass reach. Huge shifts in possibilities. Agencies created special departments just for these mediums.

And throughout all this, from 200 B.C. to 2002 A.D. we still, collectively, called it advertising.

But over the last five years agencies have been batting around terminology basically because of significant web technology and entertainment integration. Another set of dimensions with more dynamic layers of added complexity to learn. With each new media the proverbial water well keeps getting deeper and it's more difficult to see all that's possible. But I don't think that calls for new terminology.  At each evolutionary stage agencies had to adapt, lead, sell and inform.

Let's not try to over-inflate our sense of purpose in 2007. We haven't for thousands of years. We advertise. It's where art meets commerce. It always has been. Yes, the toolbox keeps growing, and we must work harder and longer to understand the possibilities for our clients. But, in my mind, it's all advertising. And that's great.

Comments

[Cooper O]

In 1998, everyone was going to be done with Brick & Mortar stores. No one used them anymore. They were dead. Why would anyone buy pet supplies from a store, when they could just order them online? Then we went swing dancing!

I'm not saying the internet is a fad, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say "branded content" is. And I don't think it's risky at all to say the same about "consumer generated ads," the acid washed jeans of the mid-2000s ad industry.

No one's really figured out a way for these "new media" to involve money changing hands, because as soon as they do, the savvy internet-using audience being courted switched to the free option.

(Which I think gets touched on by your last entry, Myspace over Facebook. As soon as these whippersnappers smell corporate sponsorship, they create something with the intended commerce-free egalitarianism of the last big thing, and go do that. And good for them)

I believe ad agencies will be idea suppliers, but I also think to devalue and shy away from "doing advertising" right now is to diminish the product of an ad agency for the sake of sounding hipe to the current lingo.

There will be a day when we figure out what 20% of all this is useful and able to make money, much like when 80% of startup websites went away. At that point ad agencies will want to say they do advertising, and wish they hadn't distanced themselves so much from the idea.

At least that's what I'm saying now. What a dinosaur, right? If you'll excuse me, I'm late for my swing dance class!

[John Drake]

the phrase: "consumer generated ads are the acid washed jeans of the mid-2000s ad industry" is as classic as it gets. great stuff. and whoever finds out about 20% actually works will be knighted.

[jenka]

i don't know exactly what the context was for all the new terminology at the conference, but i have an idea as to why it might be in vouge to want to shy away from the word "advertise". as the process of "drawing attention" has become more and more difficult, and as the "descriptions" of the product or service have become more and more hyperbolic and meaningless (let alone potentially untrue), the act of adverising has involved more and more drastic, distasteful, and disreputable measures. the word now has quite a disingenuine kind of connotation.

perhaps this search for lofty synonyms is just an attempt to distance the act from the connotation, and spin it into something less tainted? "media arts" sure does sound a lot more like something the viewer might actually enjoy, as opposed to somethign that they're pretty sure is gonna be irrelevant and trying to trick them.

then again.... it may just as likely be the result of overinflated sense of purpose :)

[Allen Jones]

to me, it is an attempt to establish advertising "street cred."

everyone in our industry is trying to come up with new terminoloy to show that they are hip to how our business is changing. if they use old lingo then they are old and certainly not experienced in the powers of new media.

agencies are alwasy jockeying for position and if they can come up with a new term - like freaking "integration" - that sticks, then all the better to try and help them be better positioned. honestly, love marks is ridiculous.

i really used to admire clow, as he always called it simple creative communications. but, now in an effort to show he is no dinosaur, he is throwing out a term like media arts.

what i hear from clients is they hate when we try too hard to be cute with what we do. they respect us more when we stand up to the business we are in - advertising.