Media industry suffering from “golden-ageism”
Were TV adverts better in the past?
It’s a hot topic of debate in adland: industry critics argue that today’s ads fail to hold up against the charm and creativity of classic ads from past decades – think Levi’s Watch Pocket, Nike’s Park Life and Tango’s Orangeman.
Recently, an article by Mediatel columnist John Lowery reignited the debate. Lowery named 16 “fantastic” ads from the 90s and 00s; but great TV ads are now a rarity, he says, as almost half of viewers surveyed by Kantar TGI agreed with the statement ‘nearly all TV advertising annoys me’, compared to just 17% in 1996.
“Imagine how much more effective TV advertising could be if the annoyance levels were still below 20%,” he added.
Kantar TGI also reports that only 13.3% of viewers agree that they enjoy ads on TV as much as the programmes, a drop of 17.2% since 1991.
For Lowery, that’s “awfully depressing” news.
However, according to Thinkbox chair Tess Alps, the average standard of TV ads is as high as ever. She says the industry is guilty of “golden-ageism”: holding up today’s adverts to the standards of a mythical past.
Meanwhile Greg Grimmer, COO of Fetch, argues that the problem is not that TV ads are less creative, but that “beautiful commercials” are being hidden from viewers by an overcrowded ad break.
“There are a plethora of enemies a great TV ad faces, whether it is the increase in overall mintage, cheaply produced sponsorship idents, or a surfeit of irrelevant programme trailers,” he told Mediatel.
Kantar TGI’s data may also reflect a broader trend towards “irascibility” as a default social setting, according to Simeon Adams, creative partner at Goodstuff.
“Blame social media, blame the global political situation, blame modern living, but I’d wager people that find ‘nearly all TV advertising’ annoying will find nearly everything annoying,” Adams says, adding that even classic ads would cause higher rates of irritation today.
Annoying or not, television adverts still work. According to Thinkbox’s ‘Killer Charts’, viewers are watching 43 ads a day on average, accounting for 95% of video advertising viewing time. Moreover, between 2008 and 2016 TV increased effectiveness of campaigns by an average of 40%, up from approximately 27% 1998 to 2006 and making TV the most effective medium for advertising.
[advert position=”left”]
It’s not the first time adland has had this debate (and it won’t be the last). In 2010, Thinkbox CEO, Lindsey Clay, argued that if there ever has been a “golden age” of advertising, we’re still in it.
“If ads are so much worse now when we have so many technologies to avoid them, why are we watching more than ever and going online to watch or share some again and again?” she said.
“When those with longer memories peer into their minds’ rear-view mirrors, all they can see are the giant, outstanding ads on the distant horizon; the less good ones are not as memorable and so are less visible.”
Clay further argued that the creative bar has risen – ads that once wowed audiences would likely be judged average today.
That’s not to say that Thinkbox isn’t actively trying to persuade brands to make better ads. The marketing body has supported research showing that creatively awarded ads are the most effective, and produced the film series ‘3 great ads I had nothing to do with’ in a bid to celebrate them within the industry.
Thinkbox also hands out bi-monthly awards to stand-out TV ads: the past eight years has seen Cravendale’s Cats with Thumbs, John Lewis’ Always a Woman, and Sport England’s This Girl Can win Thinkbox awards.
There’s never been a ‘Golden Age’ then; ad breaks have always been a mix of good ads and bad ads. Here’s a video with 272 TV ads from the 80s and 90s – if you’ve got a spare two and a half hours, you can judge for yourself.