Inside Television 518
Publication Date: 09-10-10
By: Hubert O’Hearn
One of the great advantages of book reviewing and developing good relationships with publishers is that I’m able to feed interests the newest and best-presented information. therefore, when i saw that Terry O’Reilly and Mike Tennant were releasing a book version of their brilliant CBC Radio program The Age of Persuasion, I immediately requested a copy.
Well worth it. For those who have not followed the series - I would always stumble across it, listening to CBC on random afternoons - what O’Reilly, as the narrative voice, does is go behind some of the great achievements or massive failures in advertising. he explains their logic, means of execution and results, and does so in a clear and entertaining manner. As well he should - both O’Reilly and Tennant are real-life MadMen when away from the radio studio.
Besides being an awful lot of fun to read, The Age of Persuasion also stimulates thought, sometimes simultaneously. For instance, a radio station came to O’Reilly asking for help in marketing itself. It was felt by advertisers that radio didn’t work any more. That’s not particularly good for the business model. So what O’Reilly came up with was a series of fake radio ads, or rather, real ads for non-existent stores and services. The eventual flood of consumer complaints was saved and used as evidence that not only did people notice radio ads, they were concentrated enough to be persuaded to seek out the business. Now that is brilliance.
The most intriguing notion presented, particularly as one digs into it, is that all advertising is in fact a sales contract between the company and the consumer. In exchange for interrupting the activity you want to be doing, the ad will inform or entertain you for your benefit. The television commercial is the obvious example. You want to be watching Jon Stewart do his baleful stare at Camera Three, but instead a man comes on to tell you how white your shirts can be. (And yes, I now have satisfaction stuck in my head.) At that moment, you had better care deeply about white shirts and how to make them whiter and/or have the message delivered by an extremely witty walking and talking toadstool or something, or else the contract is broken.
Annoyance is not allowed in the contract. And the contract extends beyond the obvious model. Consider television news as an example. Do you actually care about every story delivered on a newscast, 24 hour or evening format? Not likely, and you’re definitely not being entertained by stories of atrocity in Somalia. I believe this is why there no homely newscasters any more. The packaging must be attractive.
Similar too is the contract between a newspaper and its audience. May God bless the homes and all who cross their threshold of anyone who puts on a church tea in a village. I congratulate you and admire your skill with sandwiches. But said tea is not highly ranked on my list of eternal questions. And until the hallucinations begin, there is no Sandra Bullock-type standing out from the page and reading the stories. Therefore, the ads have to literally sell that page. The relationship between advertising and news in all of radio, TV and print can work brilliantly when symbiotic, disastrously when confrontational.
The final thought I’d like to share, is that I have wondered why it is that we look at objects as necessities when they didn’t exist ten years ago. I’ve had two conversations with people who are ripping their hair out because they can’t find - anywhere! - an iPhone 4 for under $1200, or a roughly 100% mark-up over an already dubious price. Well, wait two months and I’ll get you two for $500. We know this, but we keep on lustfully buying. We truly are spending ourselves into madness.
Why? Well, it’s an old saw that the ads are more entertaining than the programs, hah hah, but let’s look at the outcome of that. I do believe it by the way. I’m much more likely to look up from reading or writing to look at the TV when a certain ad come son than while the program I’m supposedly watching is on. Therefore, does the dull setting not make the gem shine even brighter? It is an interesting thought, I hope. Perhaps this is why the brilliant programming these days is more likely to be produced by commercial-less HBO and Showtime, because the traditional broadcasters have to dull down the product in order to make the ads look good.
You’ll enjoy The Age of Persuasion if you enjoy thinking about these kinds of media topics. Be seeing you.
Publication Date: 09-10-10
By: Hubert O’Hearn
One of the great advantages of book reviewing and developing good relationships with publishers is that I’m able to feed interests the newest and best-presented information. therefore, when i saw that Terry O’Reilly and Mike Tennant were releasing a book version of their brilliant CBC Radio program The Age of Persuasion, I immediately requested a copy.
Well worth it. For those who have not followed the series - I would always stumble across it, listening to CBC on random afternoons - what O’Reilly, as the narrative voice, does is go behind some of the great achievements or massive failures in advertising. he explains their logic, means of execution and results, and does so in a clear and entertaining manner. As well he should - both O’Reilly and Tennant are real-life MadMen when away from the radio studio.
Besides being an awful lot of fun to read, The Age of Persuasion also stimulates thought, sometimes simultaneously. For instance, a radio station came to O’Reilly asking for help in marketing itself. It was felt by advertisers that radio didn’t work any more. That’s not particularly good for the business model. So what O’Reilly came up with was a series of fake radio ads, or rather, real ads for non-existent stores and services. The eventual flood of consumer complaints was saved and used as evidence that not only did people notice radio ads, they were concentrated enough to be persuaded to seek out the business. Now that is brilliance.
The most intriguing notion presented, particularly as one digs into it, is that all advertising is in fact a sales contract between the company and the consumer. In exchange for interrupting the activity you want to be doing, the ad will inform or entertain you for your benefit. The television commercial is the obvious example. You want to be watching Jon Stewart do his baleful stare at Camera Three, but instead a man comes on to tell you how white your shirts can be. (And yes, I now have satisfaction stuck in my head.) At that moment, you had better care deeply about white shirts and how to make them whiter and/or have the message delivered by an extremely witty walking and talking toadstool or something, or else the contract is broken.
Annoyance is not allowed in the contract. And the contract extends beyond the obvious model. Consider television news as an example. Do you actually care about every story delivered on a newscast, 24 hour or evening format? Not likely, and you’re definitely not being entertained by stories of atrocity in Somalia. I believe this is why there no homely newscasters any more. The packaging must be attractive.
Similar too is the contract between a newspaper and its audience. May God bless the homes and all who cross their threshold of anyone who puts on a church tea in a village. I congratulate you and admire your skill with sandwiches. But said tea is not highly ranked on my list of eternal questions. And until the hallucinations begin, there is no Sandra Bullock-type standing out from the page and reading the stories. Therefore, the ads have to literally sell that page. The relationship between advertising and news in all of radio, TV and print can work brilliantly when symbiotic, disastrously when confrontational.
The final thought I’d like to share, is that I have wondered why it is that we look at objects as necessities when they didn’t exist ten years ago. I’ve had two conversations with people who are ripping their hair out because they can’t find - anywhere! - an iPhone 4 for under $1200, or a roughly 100% mark-up over an already dubious price. Well, wait two months and I’ll get you two for $500. We know this, but we keep on lustfully buying. We truly are spending ourselves into madness.
Why? Well, it’s an old saw that the ads are more entertaining than the programs, hah hah, but let’s look at the outcome of that. I do believe it by the way. I’m much more likely to look up from reading or writing to look at the TV when a certain ad come son than while the program I’m supposedly watching is on. Therefore, does the dull setting not make the gem shine even brighter? It is an interesting thought, I hope. Perhaps this is why the brilliant programming these days is more likely to be produced by commercial-less HBO and Showtime, because the traditional broadcasters have to dull down the product in order to make the ads look good.
You’ll enjoy The Age of Persuasion if you enjoy thinking about these kinds of media topics. Be seeing you.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar