art not ads

Mindhacks briefly reports on recent studies in neuromarketing, the latest back-room fad in the struggle to gain a competitive edge in marketing and advertising. From the neuromarketing article on Wikipedia:

Neuromarketing is a new field of marketing that studies consumers sensorimotor, cognitive, and affective response to marketing stimuli. Researchers use technologies such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging to measure changes in activity in parts of the brain, electroencephalography to measure activity in specific regional spectra of the brain response, and/or sensors to measure changes in ones physiological state (Heart Rate, Respiratory Rate, Galvanic Skin Response) to learn why consumers make the decisions they do, and what part of the brain is telling them to do it.

As Mindhacks points out:

if you read the newspaper articles [one in the NY Times and one in the Guardian] it’s shocking to compare their grandiose claims with this study which is currently the best ‘neuromarketing’ evidence

In other words, the marketers are marketing their own research tools — whether they work or not — both to the world and seemingly even to themselves. This smacks of pseudoscience. The usual process is bad enough: when the experimental results don’t match the desired outcome, research tends to be suppressed. But this is even worse. When the research methodology is marketed instead of its actual results, the cart is well and truly put before the horse.

Some lunacy reported in New Scientist:

Nowhere is safe from advertising. [A potato-crisp manufacturer] is inviting the British public to come up with an advert for their nachos that will be broadcast into space from a radio telescope in Norway this June. The ad will be aimed toward the “habitable zone” around one of the stars in the constellation Ursa Major. This is 42 light years away, so peckish aliens might take a while to get here.

Well, I suppose it had to happen. Stay Free comment on an article in the LA Times about a TV show called “Firebrand” which is nothing but adverts. It features “commercial jockeys” who actually introduce the upcoming ads.

Now if you don’t mind, I think I’ve just about had it…. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??? It’s as if Franz Kafka, David Cronenburg and Terry Gilliam dreamed up some hideous TV monster, and it ATE TV-LAND then crapped out RECURSIVE TV NIGHTMARES. This is in Revelations, right?

Honestly though. Are they on crack or what?

Hmm?

One of the most frequent comments people make when they read this website or discuss the topic of advertising, is that advertising isn’t a new invention, it’s been around for a long time. Consequently, it seems that advertising is a perfectly normal feature of our landscapes, and has been for generations. Which begs the question, why are Art Not Ads so upset about it?
This perspective is naive, and it’s a shame to see people who go about their world so unquestioningly. This picture, from Paleo-Future Blog shows the Statue of Liberty decked in advertising devices (discovered at Murketing). It dates from 1885, demonstrating that in fact advertising has had detractors for a long, long time - at least 120 years, and probably back as far as its origins. Advertising’s longevity doesn’t relate to popularity or acceptance. Its persistence doesn’t justify its continuation.

It’s just as true to say that advertising has been intrusive and irritating for many generations.

A story at Murketing points to an article in the New York Times, telling the inspiring tale of illustrator Linzie Hunter. She gets a lot of spam emails, like the rest of us. One day Linzie decided to use the text from these emails to create samples of her hand-lettering illustration work. She created a Flickr photoset of these illustrations, and suddenly found “fame” through mentions at BoingBoing and similar websites.

The Anti Advertising Agency has published a succinct article on plans for advertising on the world-famous Golden Gate Bridge. The author neatly summarises the glaringly obvious white elephant here:

Here’s the problem, the conservative anti-government types have starved the government of funds, and now our elected officials are at a loss about what to do. You see, people all agree with the cut-taxes mantra, but sure don’t want any services to be cut! Of course the fact that taxes go towards things that we all want and need such as infrastructure and bridges that don’t collapse isn’t explained when politicians talk about tax cuts. So now, the Golden Gate Bridge district is going hat in hand to big corporations, who have got very low corporate tax rates, so they can fund a small portion of the expensive bridge maintenance. Of course, that advertising money which is paid to the Golden Gate Bridge will be a tax-deductible advertising expense to those corporations!

So we sell off the visual beauty of one of our nation’s landmarks for a paltry sum, and the bridge still can’t make enough to cover expenses. I’ve got an idea, how about we start taking in enough money in taxes to fund our basic infrastructure.

At least, that’s what this article in the newspaper Transit Toronto suggests. One interesting point made is that the revenue generated from advertising on Toronto public transport is minimal. Consequently the increase in fares, should the advertising be completely withdrawn, would be minimal too. And the public would potentially be far happier with their surroundings. In fact, it’s possible that by replacing the ads with art, the buses, trams and trains would attract more customers - off-setting the lost revenue from removing the advertising.

Thanks again, Andy!

New Scientist magazine August 2007 reports on a study from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health indicating that children aged between 3 and 5 years preferred branded foods. Of the 63 children, 76 percent said they favoured fries presented in branded packaging, compared with 13 percent who preferred the unbranded alternative. The researchers said it was “interesting how strongly branding affects 3 to 5 year olds.” Other foodstuffs were tested; the children were twice as likely to prefer branded carrots, for example. New Scientist suggests that “clever marketing could convince youngsters to make healthier choices.”

Frankly, this seems like a losing battle, with the marketing budgets firmly stacked in favour of food producers who currently have no obligation to supply healthy food. Is there a better way..?
Update: More from mindhacks.com (thanks, Kelly!)

“One sample of the food was presented in [branded] packaging, another sample was presented in a similar plain paper bag. … Children consistently said the food from the [branded] packaging actually tasted better, regardless of whether it was actually from the company, or whether the company even had it on their menus… another significant predictor was how many televisions the family had in their home, suggesting that exposure to advertising itself might play a part.”

Mmm, gotta love that TV.

This via MetaFilter:

“The city of Sao Paulo passed an ordinance last year banning outdoor advertising; photographer Tony de Marco has been documenting the skeletal remains of the advertising infrastructure throughout the city; the impact looks like the aftermath of a new type of atomic weapon that targets marketing but leaves buildings & people unscathed.”

The MetaFilter post has lots of interesting comments and some links to other equally fascinating stuff.

Art Not Ads International!

Thanks - Andy.