An ‘awesome’* listicle about stuff I’d like to ban in 2014**

(*It’s mandatory: all listicles are ‘awesome’; **Fingers crossed)

From the squirm-inducing faux sincerity of ‘storytelling’ to cringe-worthy neologisms and generic football ads, Dominic Mills starts the New Year with a list of things the media world desperately needs to bin.

Tradition has it that the first column of any new calendar year contains a list of forecasts for the upcoming 12 months. This is mainly because nothing of any note has happened over the Christmas break, but also because it’s an opportunity – which all columnists, me included, love – for a self-indulgent mash-up of crystal-ball gazing and pontification.

Unfortunately, all the best predictions have been nicked by my fellow columnist Ray Snoddy and other MediaTel contributors.

So here, in a tribute to Buzzfeed, the hottest media property around, is my wish list of stuff that a) was big in 2013 but will die off in 2014, b) buzzwords I hate and wish would disappear, or c) ideas and terminologies that need to be taken out and shot.

1. Storytelling

If content marketing is the new kid on the block – the only legitimate form of marketing left, according to pundit Seth Godin – then ‘storytelling’ is its first lieutenant.

Uuurgh. It’s a term imbued with an almost mystical power and used with squirm-inducing faux sincerity by chin-stroking literary wannabes desperate to climb on any bandwagon that’s not advertising.

The word conjures up a world of people sitting round log fires passing on folksy wisdom in the form of narrative. Only it’s subverted by brands that insinuate themselves into our lives. Boring.

Better to think of it just as interesting stuff, and some of the best content as just plain useful, such as recipes or these DIY videos by B&Q.

2. Viewability

Shock horror…advertisers want their online ads to be viewable and media owners like Google are beginning to take the message on board.

Wow, the implication goes, this is a radical step forward by some forward-thinking media owners. And aren’t media agencies brave to push for it.

Anyone would think this was an unreasonable request, a bit like expecting the airline you fly with to provide passengers with seats.

Perhaps this is a digital thing, but the idea that you could buy inventory that would never be seen sounds a bit odd to me – and something ‘old’ media would struggle to understand. Even if you bought a slot at 2.17am on QVC, you’d know it was ‘viewable’.

Of course ‘viewability’ is not the same as ‘viewed’, but the sooner media owners only sell inventory users can see the sooner this ludicrous term disappears.

I hesitate to come over all existential, but an ad that isn’t ‘viewable’ is an ad that doesn’t actually exist.

3. Neologisms

I am indebted to US adman Bob Hoffman, author of the Ad Contrarian blog, for highlighting this outstanding piece of wank neologism – ‘phygital’ – adopted by an agency called Red House Lane.

Put the ad and digital industries together, and there is every danger of an neologism epidemic. Anyone for ‘share-gagement’ – where shareability meets engagement? Or what about ‘Roi-mmersive’ – where ROI meets immersive (it’s almost compulsory for all advertising experiences to be immersive these days, even a banner ad)?

Agencies too are particularly prone to this disease, all the more so as, in order to find a point of difference, they pursue increasingly idiotic and fanciful concepts – all branded ‘proprietary’, naturally.

The newly-merged Inferno DraftFCB, for example, apparently has a ‘Captology’ network. No, don’t ask me how they arrived at that shocker.

You have been warned. Be alert, please.

4. Football ads

This is wishful thinking – all the more so given 2014 is World Cup year – but aren’t you sick of those multi-million pound extravaganzas in which the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, Ribery, Suarez and Ibrahamovich (Rooney won’t make the cut) perform amazing feats of football trickery – all helped by computers of course – and grin at each other like they’re best mates, only we know they hate each other?

Plus, you can’t tell the difference between an ad for Adidas, Nike or Puma.

Why can’t they ever fall over, air kick or miss the goal by a mile, just like the rest of us or, say, Fulham’s Darren Bent?

Nike’s blissful Park Life came close, but it was years ago.

5. ‘Let’s-get-behind-the-lads’ ads

Again, fat chance of this happening, but it would be nice if some brands could resist declaring their passion for England’s World Cup team, even as they edge closer to crashing out in the opening rounds.

You know the kind of thing I mean – when some irrelevant bank or insurer discovers its patriotic inner self and announces that it’s ‘Proud to be a supporter of Roy and his boys’. And sometimes they’re ‘official’ supporters; and sometimes they’re ‘passionate’ as well. Cue ads featuring the St George’s Cross and lame puns. So predictable; so forgettable.

6. Stop knocking the BBC

Arguing that the BBC needs protection may be counter-intuitive, given a) that the BBC is possibly the most self-satisfied, self-regarding organisation in Britain and b) that every eyeball or eardrum tuned in to the BBC is one lost to the commercial sector.

But the overall quality of its output remains extremely high and hidden attributes of the BBC is that it keeps commercial media owners and advertisers honest and up to the mark.

A BBC producing top-quality output forces the likes of ITV, Channel 4, Sky and Global Radio to match it. And advertisers have to raise their game too. You can’t have low-quality ads appearing within high-quality output.

Just look at America. Mainstream, network, TV is crap – and so are haemorrhoid ads.

Sadly, however, thanks to self-inflicted wounds and the political climate, pressure is already building to change – for which read cut – its funding arrangement and remit. Which is exactly what it doesn’t need at the moment.

That is not to say the licence fee should escape scrutiny. One of the less-remarked aspects of the licence fee is the way the number of households increases each year, and thus income rises automatically – even without any change in the rate.

According to the TV licence authority, the number of households with a licence rose by 80,000 from 24.87 million in 2008/9 to 24.96 million in 2009/10, and more recently income rose by £50 million in the latest financial year.

So come on in, you Bulgarians and Romanians – as long as you pay your licence fee.

7. Mary Meeker doctrine

Silicon Valley (and once of Wall Street) guru Mary Meeker is famous for her annual state of the internet addresses. As with all seers, her opinions are often co-opted by those with a vested interest.

In this case, it’s her famous time spent/ad revenues chart, which measures time spent with a medium versus ad revenues dedicated to it.

You don’t have to be a genius to see where she’s coming from on this one (notwithstanding the fact that her employer, VC outfit Kleiner Perkins, has stakes in dozens of digital outfits), which is that mobile and the internet don’t get their fair share of ad dollars.

How come? Well, it’s based on the entirely specious and simplistic notion that the ratio between time spent and ad revenues should be 1:1.

Hmm, no. Other factors need to be taken into account, such as impact, response, attribution/recall and, dare I say it, ‘viewability’. That old slogan ‘eat shit, a billion flies can’t be wrong’, springs to mind.

Naturally, her slide chart is used by all kinds of slick salespeople anxious to talk up their digital product.

If Meeker’s assumptions are correct, as that insightful media veteran Brian Jacobs points out, outdoor’s share should be humungous. Strangely, it doesn’t even feature on her chart.

It’s time someone with no vested interest debunked her thinking.