« A Shameless Plug for WOMBAT 3 | Main | O tempora! O mores! »

Can this industry be saved?

A pair of articles this week got me really depressed about the state of advertising. They indicate that marketers' only response in this time of change is to shout louder and to make ever more outlandish claims. If the industry wants higher consumer "engagement", we'd better fix both of these problems really quickly.

First was Advertising Age's "Caught in the Clutter Crossfire: Your Brand." Not only does it cite a growing list of digital and physical places where ads appear outside of traditional media venues, it notes "TV commercial pods are fatter than they've ever been."

Then Business Week's "Why the Hype Just Keeps on Coming." Under increasing pressure to differentiate products, benefit claims are stretching farther and farther. The article quotes a spokesperson for the Body Vibe exercise product which the Better Business Bureau ruled made a false claim that celebrities and athletes used their product. Their defense:

"The sites and athletes who we are referencing do not use Body Vibe exactly but use the body vibration techniques and we will correct that in our Web site."

I have no doubt it is a better claim that the athletes use the product than that they use techniques that the product uses. But it is exactly these kinds of shortcuts that alienate consumers. And lest you think it is only small advertisers who make outlandish claims, the article cites a number of leading brands that have had to pull ads or promise not to run them again because the claims were deemed misleading.

Both of these are classic "tragedy of the commons" issues. Consumer attention and trust are the "common property" that all advertisers use, but there is no individual disincentive to abuse them. Meanwhile we can clearly see the impact of the aggregate overuse of the "resource": lower trust and more ad avoidance to all messages.

About a month ago, Ad Age had an article on the latest wave of proposed laws creating "do not mail" lists for postal mail. Another example where the consumer is going to privatize the commons to keep marketers out.

As co-chair of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association Ethics committe, I've spent a lot of the last year thinking about responsible behavior in the emerging WOM space. We have our share of tragedy of the commons issues as my fellow Board member Pete Blackshaw pointed out. But the stories cited above indicate ethics is a bigger issue than just WOM.

I know a lot of marketers think ethics is a mushy, altruistic concept, but evidence like this indicates we marketers are reaching the outer limits of tolerance for an attitude of "if-it-is-cool-and-we-can-get-away-with-it-let's-do-it" mentality. When we don't have our ethics right, consumers take more control to shut us out.

But I also believe the opposite is true: strong ethics will begin to emerge as a competitive differentiator and gain consumer engagement and loyalty.

Posted by Jim Nail on April 5, 2007 at 04:26 PM | Email this post Permalink
Technorati Tags: , , , ,

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cdcdc53ef00d83532242869e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Can this industry be saved?:

Comments

So nicely articulated, Jim, and we need to keep marketers educated and -- dare I say -- more "engaged" around this topic. I also could not agree more with your last point. In this age of transparency, doing right -- especially in the eyes of the consumer -- will be the #1 competitive advantage for winning brands and companies. Let keep this conversation alive. - pete

Posted by: Pete Blackshaw | Apr 5, 2007 6:02:57 PM

You nailed it, Jim.

Honest marketing makes more money:

a. Happy customers advertise for you for free.

b. Customers acquired from word of mouth have no acquisition cost.

c. Annoying people is not good for business.

d. Neither is lying to them.

Wake up everyone!

Cheers,

Andy

Posted by: Andy Sernovitz | Apr 6, 2007 8:46:00 AM

Although Jim didn't tell me about this article (I found it in my daily Google download), I can testify as to the serious thought Jim has given these issues -- as well as his deep commitment to them -- as I have had the privilege of working with Jim on ethics issues at WOMMA.

It would be one thing if the intelligent strategies and ethical practices he champions divided marketers simply based on some moral standard of "good." The paradoxical thing is that they also are contra-distinguished from traditional marketing techniques on the basis of effectiveness!

Earth is flat, anyone?

Posted by: Peter Waldheim | Apr 7, 2007 10:01:26 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.