2008 - the year of peak advertising

There've been things buzzing around my head for a while about the fact that it seems inevitable (to me) that 'in the future' there'll be less advertising and less commercial media. I couldn't find the bit of grit that would precipitate it into a bigger bit of grit though, until I read an almost throwaway but genius thought on Matt Webb's Interconnected yesterday:

"2008 is the year we hit Peak Attention. You can either carry on encountering as much as you do now, giving every input less and less attention every year, or you can start managing it, keeping some back to take long-haul attention flights. What are the consequences of living post-Peak Attention? Nobody will be able to understand anything hard unless they make sacrifices."

I love the way that reframes the idea of attention scarcity. And it made me realise that 2008 may well also be the year of Peak Advertising. In the West at least. The year in which there is the most advertising. And after that there's less and less each year.

Most traditional media seem to be in a period of creative flowering and commercial decay. I guess we'll end up with a mixture of 'free' ad-supported newpapers and proper paid-for ones, but I can't see that all the newspapers we have now will survive. And they certainly won't grow the total advertising bucket. (I'm hoping newspapers will merge like British comics used to - The Daily Mail incorporating The Express.) Television's never been a more vital medium because/despite never being a more uncertain business. And as Chris Anderson points out in his Nokia keynote - magazines only exist because they're subsidised by advertising. With all of these things shrinking, they're not going to attract more advertising money. And there's not going to be more of them. So, less advertising.

And then there's societal pushback. The disruptive marketing arms race has invaded so many corners of our lives that we've noticed, and decided we don't want to put up with it any more. So advertising gets more and more regulated, pushed out of kid's TV, various categories of advertiser gets banned and urban spam gets regulated out of existence (ish). People who protest against this kind of thing always cry that this will lead to less media. Well, yes it will, and it seems we're happy to live with that.

So, is it all migrating to the internet? Every web 2.0 start-up seems to think it's going to be funded by advertising. Many will be. But they won't all be. There's not enough advertising money to go around. And while online advertising growth is bound to continue, it's not extra money, it's money coming out of other places. Google are probably dragging some money into advertising from small businesses that didn't do it before but will that replace the money that's coming out of advertising and into the construction of more direct relationships and into better, more communicative products? Who knows?

And if you're a real person, advertising money moving out of a magazine and onto the internet means you're  less likely to see it.  If the online advertising promise comes true (though I have to admit I'm skeptical about that) then increased relevance and targeting means you won't get attacked by so many irrelevant attention seekers. So even if there isn't actually less advertising online, it'll feel like there is.

But, you still might argue, all that's happening is that is advertising moving from one place to another. It's still going to be all over the internet, there's not going to be less of it.

Well, yes. Except for two things:

Firstly, the web not only spawned adwords, it also birthed the adblocker. Digital media allows you to be in more control of what impinges on your attention than the real world does. That's not going away.

Secondly, there are lots and lots of non-commercial alternatives that are free and quite good.  And 'free and quite good' is really hard for regular commercial media to deal with.  Whatever you think of this blog, you're reading it now, and while you're doing that you're not watching Hollyoaks or reading The New York Times. And I'm not doing this for advertising revenue, I'm doing this because I like doing it. And I'm not the only one, millions and millions of people are going to be creating material that's free and quite good and doesn't require advertising. Murdoch can't compete with 'free and quite good'. He can't compete with wikipedia and Craig's List. The only way to compete with that is 'expensive and brilliant' and a) that's hard and b) difficult to get people to pay for. So in might work in some niches but it won't work everywhere.

It's a simple equation - there's a limited amount of attention in the world, if more of it is going to personal, non-commercial, un-advertised-in media, less of it will go to advertising and advertising will shrink.

The only exceptions I can see for this are the growth markets of Asia, Eastern Europe and South America. They're going to get lots and lots more ads. Which is why the big ad groups look at the world like fag companies - they're not really bothered about the West any more. I suspect though, that just as it won't take them long to adopt and adapt consumerism, it won't take them long to reach their own Peak Advertising year.

Mostly of course, this is upside. We'll be bothered with less stupid advertising. And although there'll be less people in advertising the people who remain will mostly be tasked with making more intelligent and useful stuff. And there'll be less pointless media.

I do worry though that we'll end up with a bifurcated media world. Premium Media for those that can afford it (pay a bit more, get no ads, watch/listen to everything you want to) and Free Media for the rest - poorer quality stuff, supported by advertising aimed at that particular audience, leading to a downward, lowest common denominator spiral. That's something that needs solving. But I don't think it'll be solved by more advertising.

Or I could be wrong. Anyway.

 

Comments

[Rosie]

I just sat and read the blog entries I have missed through Typepad being blocked at my work and spending too much time at work. And this post in particular was incredibly thought provoking, which, although it has a dear place in my heart, is more than I get from Hollyoaks. Also loved the post with the abandoned Christmas trees and umbrella corpses. Brilliant.
Rosie

[lauren]

yeah, i echo rosie's praise. brilliant post russell - you manage to announce armageddon with such decorum!

[Robin Grant]

Russell, I'm not sure we're quite at peak yet - I've a feeling the clutter is going to get worse before it gets better:

http://www.e-consultancy.com/news-blog/364853/microsoft-plans-contextual-trolley-ad-system.html

"Microsoft is set to bring contextual advertising to supermarket trolleys through a partnership with retail IT group Mediacart"

[John]

Loved the peak advertising phrase when I saw it via your del.ici.ous and love your post but sadly dont think we're there yet.

The realisation of the increased toughness of the battle for attention is where we are at now. The response will be to do more of the same more intensively (and focus in on alleged water cooler events like the Olympics).

The peak will come some years after people realise that it isn't working.

[Paul Fisher]

A fascinating theory.

I agree with your equation that due to limited attention & growth in non-commercial, un-advertised-in media, advertising could shrink.

But what you miss is a separate market growing up alongside. What you are missing is what advertising can enable.
1) The great hope for the music industry today is that it can become, either in part or in whole ad supported. This will require more advertising.
2) Many web applications that we use for nothing today, can only exist because advertising helps pay their creators rent.

These are either completely virgin or replacement markets for advertising subsidization. But they are fast growing. And they both mean more advertising.

I do agree with you that advertising can be less stupid. The great thing about
1) the personalization of the web and
2) the way that traditional advertising mediums are breaking

is that we will continue to get more and more innovative and relevant ads.

[Ben]

That should have been a Campaign article.

[Jim]

Good stuff. I got thinking about something similar a few months back, around the pace and scale of information delivery. There's more information around which is being crushed into RSS friendly, 5 word headlines etc so you end up reading everything and absorbing nothing.

We may actually see a rebirth for deeper, more immersive communication as people realise the folly of trying to keep up with only a millimetre of real knowledge. Books, role playing computer games, movies etc which offer escape - and undivided attention.

http://jimdowling.typepad.com/simple/2007/06/the_long_good_r.html

[Jim]

Good stuff. I got thinking about something similar a few months back, around the pace and scale of information delivery. There's more information around which is being crushed into RSS friendly, 5 word headlines etc so you end up reading everything and absorbing nothing.

We may actually see a rebirth for deeper, more immersive communication as people realise the folly of trying to keep up with only a millimetre of real knowledge. Books, role playing computer games, movies etc which offer escape - and undivided attention.

http://jimdowling.typepad.com/simple/2007/06/the_long_good_r.html

[Dave Daines]

I think we still have at least a few more years of more advertising and more commercial media. Regardless of whether ads work, agencies and their clients will continue this period of experimentation. Microsites, viral you-tube videos, and integrated campaigns will continue to fill out client spends and generate more data than anyone knows what to do with.

I'm not sure when the media surpassed our maximum level of attention, but I'm sure we can all agree that there's so much whizzing past our eyes everyday that we don't retain information in the same ways that we used to. The effective marketers of the future will probably not be competing for our memories, or even our subconsciouses, but to become a part of the way we organize and use this unlimited information.

We might not be making ads, but commercial media will only continue to expand.

[Roger Warner]

good calls. attention has a definite limit and it's going elsewhere. advertisers and agencies are going to need to find new avenues for grabbing us.

weirdly, i wrote a post on similar lines this PM - see the link if you're interested... anyways i think you're bang on here.

the other thing that i find interesting in all this is that the living room / armchair / TV will still support a tonne of advertising. an RJ-45 cable in the back of a telly and an enbedded browser assures this (which is what Google were on about at last week's CES show in the States).

I think what a lot of the digerati gloss over when they debate the death of advertising is the fact that our behaviour in many ways doesn't. we still enjoy watching the sopranos sat on our asses. so new'ish stuff like IPTV can still (and will, i think) support the golden era of advertising.

[Donny]

Russell, to your comment:

"If the online advertising promise comes true (though I have to admit I'm skeptical about that) then increased relevance and targeting means you won't get attacked by so many irrelevant attention seekers. So even if there isn't actually less advertising online, it'll feel like there is."

If the shift continues and more brands seek out untraditional medias, do you think larger brands will eventually shift from dominating one media such as TV, to dominating another such as the NET? It almost seems like relevance will be lost once the big dog brands and big dollars start taking control of the net. Let the bidding wars begin and watch relevant content go out the window...

What do you think?

[jesse basset]

Inevitably tv and video content will split between paid for and ad supported content. In this scenario we will pick and choose when we are prepared to tolerate advertising for free content.

As for the written word, traditional media titles will have to compete with the 'free and quite good' but quality journalism will always have a place, hence the Guardian's huge global audience online.

Over time 'marketing' type thinking will be more focused on the business itself rather than just in communications. With this leading to better products and services this can only be a good thing

[Eamon]

I think that advertising is splodging (outwards)

with pure advertising in the middle of the splodge

and spreading out from the splodge you have mixtures of:

- advertising / usefulness

(and by 'usefulness', I don't just mean 'brand utility', I also mean brands being involved with big building projects, scientific research, community support, and so on)

- advertising / publicity (and PR)

(the way businesses / their advertising agencies communicate brands via the internet and traditional media, via publicity stunts/events/sponsorships and so on)

Account planners / brand planners are going to have to understand more about PR / Publicity (learning a bit from entrepreneurial businessmen and publicists such as Richard Branson), as well as copywriting / communicating in general.

And on top of this account planners / brand planners will also have to learn more about digital media in general (as well all know).

[Eamon]

Regarding newspapers.

Apologies for going a bit off course.

But i think that newspapers have a future (of sorts).

When companies began investing lots of money in selling food online, they forgot or failed to realize an important thing about people and shopping: people love to touch / smell / and look at food (and then there are all the other reasons why people go shopping other than just to get food). There are some companies doing a much better job at online shopping now than when it first began (but, even so, supermarkets are still full of people).

Which brings me to newspapers. And the fact that we like to FEEL newspapers / rustle through them / tear bits out of them / underline and doodle on etc .. Newspapers are useful. And they are enigmatic. A friend of mine loves looking at the back page of the Irish Times. The page consists of ads but it is his favourite page - ads for all sort of weird and quirky Dublin things. Reminds me of Bill Bryson who loves to leaf through the New York Times (i think it is). And he, too, mentions that the ad pages (as well as just the feel of having lots of news / views / information etc .. sitting on your knee) are his favourite pages.

I think there will always be the need to get a bit of print on your hand. It's a way of relaxing / getting away from your computer / electronic things that you have to use at work / modern/hectic world in general.
Newspaper brand people have a lot of useful stuff to go on to make thier product interesting (from a design / look / experience) point of view. And there is lots of interesting heritage behind newspapers too.

Newspapers will (or could) sort of become the vinyl of the music business. But the big difference being that it costs money to purchase a vinyl (record ?) player and the vinyl, itslef, but it only costs a quid to buy a newspaper.

I don't think newspapers have quite reached the point where they have to go down this route yet. But they will, I imagine, in a few years or so (and it could be quite interesting/fun/exciting working as a brand/account planner / creative on a newspaper account when this happens).

[david koranda]

i presume you have seen epic14 relating to the future of the ny times? and i keep thinking that we have reached an age of media attention deficit and more continues to appear. maybe we reach our peak this year.
dave koranda