On his blog, Jeff Jarvis has three videos that explain his thoughts on the idea of advertising as failure, or in other words, why advertising is only required when a product does not connect with the consumer on its own. He first spoke about this with the Nokia Ideas Project and then expanded on the idea at the BRITE Conference at Columbia University. We like what he says about the direct relationship between the customer and the company being more important than the role of the ‘middleman’, which is what he refers to advertising as.
Watch the first video below, and the rest here.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Jarvis is a smart guy, but for every relationship there has to be an introduction. That introduction might be “advertising”, it might be something else. And after that introduction, particularly if the downside risk of a relationship is high, there is a courting/vetting process. Advertising, PR, promotion…call it what you will, marcom can help facilitate the courtship.
June 9th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Spot on Tom; conventional mass-media advertising may not be as effective as it used to be, but every relationship needs communication of some sort. More here: http://eskimon.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/advertising-as-failure/
June 9th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Tom, Eskimon, yes, if you follow the link you’ll see that Jeff is urging Ad Agencies to “[facilitate] company to customer relationship”. I believe Jeff’s critique is more against a “display / impression” approach to internet advertising; this approach standing alone fails on the internet whether it is executed by agencies or by brands themselves.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
This doesn’t make sense. I don’t want a relationship with a product company. Relationships have to be maintained and I have too many relationships already.
June 9th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Jarvis always delivers but I preferred the Adbusters slant -
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/84/pop_nihilism_adverting_eats_itself.html
June 10th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Eskimon – as you say in your post, advertising can definitely work harder – and it should aim to be non-intrusive. I guess Jarvis is trying to stress on the direct relationship being of more importance to the individual consumer. At the end of the day, if O2 doesn’t sort my problems out and all I am able to get is an automated machine every time I try to contact them for help, then no amount of advertising is going to make me change my mind about the brand being crap.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:39 am
Hi Tom – Jarvis actually does say in that same post, albeit in a humorous vein, that he hopes there is always enough work for advertising agencies. Advertising/PR etc. may facilitate the courtship, but clearly sometimes they try to hijack the entire relationship, and that doesn’t work.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:40 am
Hi Ruben – spot on!
June 10th, 2009 at 3:41 am
Hi Tom – I don’t think you’ll say that when it is left to you to deal with a company because you have problems with them. Advertising is not going to help you get your customer service complaints sorted! :) The ideal scenario would be when you don’t need that kind of one-to-one relationship with a product company, but that’s not all the time…still, I get your point about not wanting too many relationships. This is a relationship you only need to enter into when necessary!
June 10th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Hi Meeps – that’s a great article, thanks for the link.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:49 am