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.

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.

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 story has been kicking about for a while, but it’s worth mentioning. Have you seen those awful ads that a certain tissue-manufacturer has been airing, where a guy sits on a blue couch in the street and invites people to “let it out” and talk to him? There’s a box of tissues on the table, and as the volunteers open up their hearts, they tug out a tissue to dry their eyes. Very touching.

The manufacturer in question, Kimberley-Clarke, make a proud boast of using 100% virgin fibre. Campaigners Kleercut say that this material largely comes from clear-cutting ancient forests, which are home to wolves, caribou, and other wildlife that are forced to move on as their habitat is destroyed. It certainly doesn’t look very pretty.

The Kleercut campaigners took to the streets of New York to interrupt the filming of some of these ads. The results are quite amusing. However, the really interesting part of that film from is the comments from the advertising film crew that can be heard in the opening sequences. The volunteers are told that their tears should be genuine, so they’ll need to discuss something moving.

Very few people are naive enough to think that the actual sessions on the blue couch are as open and heartwarming as the final edit purports; and some may not agree with Kleercut’s tactics. But it’s fascinating to get a glimpse into the machinations of an advertising campaign that sets out to deceive. Of course, TV is all theatre, but this advert uses members of the public in an ostensibly impromptu display of emotion, a facade that is demolished by the overheard comments in the film. The link to the final product is tenuous at best, though as any marketeer will tell you, if you engage the audience’s emotions, they’ll most likely remember the product. It’s disappointing that everyone involved in the ad, even presumably the volunteers for the blue couch, were aware that they were all being duplicitous about the premise of the ad. In any group activity, responsibility can become diffused among all participants, so the individuals feel little responsibility themselves. Is it a little harsh to suggest similar mechanisms are at work in advertising, particularly in cynical and exploitative ads? Is there any other reason that people are induced to take part in this sort of advertising? (Apart from cash of course..!)

David Lynch succinctly expresses his opinion on films that use “product placement” to gain funding:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4wh_mc8hRE

Some intriguing adverts have appeared recently on London Underground trains. In trendy red, black and white, with pixelated lettering and dirty “urban” scrawls, the ads inform us of vaguely worrying “facts” - for example, 75% of information on the Internet is controlled by one company. The only other detail is a URL:

http://www.information-revolution.org

Could it be that a funky, media-savvy outfit has been formed just to look out for us average internet users? Has a digital Batman unleashed his fearsome data-privacy super-powers on the unjust of the web’s information oligarchy? How exciting! Visiting the site reveals some obtuse ramblings about an apparent group of chums who dreamt up this crazy scheme over a few beers one evening, and then knocked up a website. Okay, so not Batman exactly, but isn’t it great that a group of Citizens has formed to protect us from this pernicious Big Brother? Which begs the question, who is this Big Brother anyway? Ah, there it is, tucked away: it’s Google.

Can it be that these guys combine Batman’s sense of justice with David’s (of “David vs Goliath” [tm] fame) giant-slaying Biblical might? Why, that would be just great!

Erm, no. Of course not. It is apparently a bizarre attempt at kick-starting a “viral marketing” campaign. The website is operated by an advertising agency called Profero, whose clients include Yahoo! and Ask - two companies who are desperate to claw some of the market out of Google’s sticky fingers. Considering the site is in Ask’s index, but neither Google nor Yahoo! have indexed the site yet, suggests that Ask have sponsored this. That’s just guess-work of course. (Update: Inspired guess-work it seems. An ad on TV last night confirms it is indeed Ask behind this atrocious campaign. Where exactly do they think all this pompous cyber-warrior nonsense is going to get them? Where will it end? Will they not rest until their CEO is hoisted onto the shoulders of the unshackled hoi-polloi, who, weeping hot tears of thanks after years of oppression, rally around their saviour - a 3rd rate search engine???)

The campaign is so hugely clumsy it beggars belief. It’s so easy to register a website anonymously, and they didn’t even bother doing that. Spattering fnords all over London advertising media is such an out-dated advertising technique it just makes you cringe (and has doubtless attracted the attention of Google’s legal department). Companies like Nike and Reebok conducted sophisticated viral marketing campaigns decades ago, before it was even known by that name, by paying teenage taste-makers to wear their products and tell their friends how great they were (read Naomi Klein’s book “No Logo” for more detail on that sordid industry). However viral marketing is so formulaic these days that Profero can’t even be bothered to do anything beyond the basics: trendy ads, blah blah, website, blah, privacy paranoia, blah blah, blog, vox-pop video interviews, done. That’ll be several thousand pounds, please, thank you. I’m surprised they haven’t spooged it all over YouTube and MySpace. Well, never mind, at least they offer us free t-shirts so that we can “get involved”. Thanks for that.

The thing that’s really odd is that Profero’s campaign is so ball-achingly poor that they must assume that either (a) the populous is stupid enough to swallow it, or (b) their client is stupid enough to pay for it. Unfortunately the latter is clearly true.

London’s Metro “newspaper” today carries an interview with psychologist Oliver James. His latest book, “Affluenza”, looks into the link between consumerist aspirations and mental health problems such as anxiety, depression and substance abuse. His views are undeniably tinted by his politics, but he backs up his points with some interesting evidence. Some choice quotes:

“One in four people in English-speaking countries has suffered a mental illness in the past 12 months compared with 11.5 percent of Western Europeans… Affluenza makes you ill because it prevents you meeting fundamental psychological needs. Instead you’re lured by ‘wants’ confected by advertisers who encourage consumption… All of us [have become] obsessed with having more money to have a ‘better’ lifestyle… Maybe we should be satisfied with what we’ve got. Your best bet is to try to have happy, satisfying relationships.”

A slight twist on an old story, with a very familiar conclusion.

The London Underground uses Oyster cards instead of paper tickets. There are many benefits to Oyster, they can all be read on the London Underground and Oyster websites.
There are also a few problems. For example, the Oyster database contains hugely valuable information, most likely including the age, gender, social status and travel habits of Oyster card users (a lot of this coming from correlating Oyster card usage with credit or debit card payments). Unfortunately the London Underground service coerces people into purchasing and registering Oyster cards, by raising the price of paper tickets and keeping Oyster prices relatively low. Paper monthly travel cards can no longer be purchased, and Oyster season tickets require registration. So it’s doubtful that the caring, sharing LU and Oyster executives sat around the boardroom wondering “How can we best serve the people of London?” You can picture the guffawing and the mopping of tears from mirthful eyes. No, far more likely, they pondered “This database was commissioned in order to generate profit; how can we maximise that profit?”

Is the Tube really run for profit, instead of for the benefit of the paying public??? Surely not! Well, yes of course it is. But is that a bad thing? Surely there’s nothing wrong with making profit? Hmm, maybe not. But maybe there’s a problem with a profiteering monopoly that forces its captive audience to provide valuable information in order to generate yet more revenue? That seems remarkably close to exploitation.

Incidentally, if you want some idea of the sort of cash that’s injected into the Tube, let’s look at the sorry facts. In July 2003, responsibility for running the London Underground was passed from the Government to the Mayor of London. The Government had already put in place a Public/Private Partnership, and this remained intact after the transfer. The Government will provide TfL and the Mayor UK£1billion per year, until 2010. That’s an awful lot of money, but the Tube gobbles it up quickly. Mayor Ken Livingston has been sceptical about the PPP, and in April 2005 his Tube advisor Bob Kiley described its performance as “bordering on disaster”. The program of work continues to be way behind schedule despite making millions in profit for the private firms involved.

The horrible truth about Oyster is that it isn’t even fully functional. Many stations, particularly overground stations, don’t have the Oyster card facilities necessary to register a customer’s passing. Changing or boarding at these stations can lead to the dreaded “incomplete journey” which of course carries a penalty fare, instantly deducted from funds registered on the card. “Ah,” say the Oyster defenders, “but this is just an inconvenient side-effect of a system that is used to trap fare-dodgers. It will save us all money in the long-run by preventing crime!” Really? I’d like to see the figures that categorically support that. And the problem with this sort of attitude is that it’s one-sided. Prevention of fare-dodging is only one requirement; surely it’s just as important that any ticketing system doesn’t penalise legitimate users? Imagine going to a theme-park or concert and being charged £4 more for going through one entrance rather than another, indistinguishable entrance. “Ah,” say the bouncers, “it’s just an inconvenient side-effect of a system designed to stop ticket-touts. Now pay up or get out, you filthy proto-criminal.”

I personally experienced a nasty side-effect of the system recently. Specifically, some Oyster card readers can be “turned up” so they read the cards at an increased distance. This was confirmed to me by station staff. It was the only explanation they could come up with for why I was unwittingly being charged a penalty fare every day while using paper tickets, while my Oyster card remained in my pocket. I lost quite a lot of money before I realised. Nice one. Wish me luck claiming that back. (In case you wish to recreate the problem, I’ve noticed it has since stopped. The journey was: enter Chalk Farm using Oyster pre-pay. Exit Euston. Walk to train platform, purchase paper return ticket to Wembley Central. Pass through barrier using paper ticket [barrier also has Oyster reader]. Take train to Wembley Central, exit using paper ticket. Reverse journey in the evening.)
So. What does this have to do with Art Not Ads? Very simple. The Oyster database collects hugely powerful information that can be used to make decisions about which ads are placed on which platforms. Maybe that’s no bad thing, it’s your call. Personally I don’t want to provide the sort of people described here with any more information that will help them wring more cash out of the public while they fail to provide the service required.

What can be done? Here’s where there’s a small, interesting loop-hole. In Euston underground station, there is an Oyster card vending machine which sells the cards for £3. It’s a mechanical vending machine that takes coins, not cards. I have recently discovered that the cards are “registered”, although they of course contain no personal information about you, the proud new owner. This means you can purchase one and “load” it with pre-pay and season tickets, and the Oyster database will not be able to collect any useful information about you: no name (from which software can guess gender and age), no association with credit/debit card details (name, possibly marriage status, credit card reference for credit checking and estimation of social status) - in short, no information that LU has been forcing its customers to provide. Provided you always pay in cash, the card is completely anonymous.

What a lovely gift.

Of course there are problems. If you lose the card, you lose the cash. Plus you don’t get the convenience of paying with plastic. But with convenience comes complacency, and that’s a slippery slope.

A beer-pusher is currently advertising its drug using the slogan “belong”. The desperate importance of “belonging” is illustrated by film of a huge, swarming flock of birds; in the background plays one of those a chirpy pop-rock songs that seem to be 10-a-penny at the moment.

It’s a little cryptic, so I’ve hunted high and low for a translation, and apparently, this is what it means:

“Belong! It doesn’t matter what all this is about; in fact, we’re not even going to tell you. That’s not important any more, those days are gone. You just need to BELONG. Everyone else belongs, and that’s what’s important, isn’t it? Join the herd, you’ll be safe. It doesn’t matter what we’re selling, you need it because everyone else tells you. Don’t question it, don’t try to resist, and don’t be different - whatever you do, DON’T BE DIFFERENT. Don’t think, don’t question, just BELONG. Belonging is what’s important, and you can illustrate your belonging by purchasing the correct products. Everything’s the same these days anyway: it doesn’t really matter what you buy, so you may as well BELONG. Why wouldn’t you want to BELONG? Why on Earth wouldn’t you? It doesn’t matter what it is that you belong to, don’t worry about that. It’s like an exclusive club where all your mates are members! In fact, you’ll automatically make friends just by joining! Well, not friends exactly, but at least you’ll know who you don’t like, and that’s everyone who’s not in the club, right? So everyone who is in the club must be your friend. It’s obvious. All this could be yours, just by buying some piss-poor lager. Seriously! That’s what we’re offering. Membership to some nebulous herd of clueless people who’re waiting to be told what to do, what to think, what to wear, what to buy - people just like you! Now some people say that you could save money by not BELONGING, by not purchasing those special things that you need to show in order to BELONG. But where’s the fun in that? You work hard for that cash, so spend it! And what better to spend it on than BELONGING?”

Wow, that sounds just brilliant.

I saw something interesting today. The web-browser Firefox was advertised in the New York Times on 16th December 2004. The ad featured over 10,000 people who had donated US$250,000 to the Mozilla Foundation. It’s great to see an example of a donation-funded organisation creating an alternative to the norm. Although there was nothing unusual about their choice of advertising tactic or medium, or indeed their aims, it’s always good to know that wherever there is a corporate monoculture, someone will try to make a difference.