The 'old ads interrupting movies' con
Why is it that M-Net is still the only TV channel in the country that understands the marketing insanity of flogging advertising airtime during movies? Or is it because M-Net is the only honest operator in the business, while the others realise full well that the marketing value of an ad shown during a movie is pretty well zero, but continue to flog airtime anyway as long as there are clients and media planners naive enough to think they are getting some sort of value?
I remember almost a decade ago Australia's most-awarded art director, Ron Mather of the Campaign Palace, was in South Africa and in true, straight-from-the-shoulder Aussie fashion, he had some cutting comments to make on international media trends.
Old chestnut
And the first thing he had his knickers in a knot about was the old chestnut of ads interrupting movies on television.
Only when clients understand that no one is interested in buying their products in the middle of a great film being televised on a Sunday night will great advertising be allowed to flourish, he said.
"Imagine going to the cinema and having them stop the film every 10 minutes so that someone can come on to the stage and tell you how good their washing machines are. I don't think you'd go to see too many films. But on television it seems to be okay and people will put up with it.
Unwelcome visitor
"Well, they won't and they aren't. Ads are very unwelcome visitors in people's houses. They interrupt enjoyment and mostly do it in a very insensitive manner."
Tough talk indeed.
Ten years later, most TV stations still don't give a damn whether clients are getting value or not. With the result that billions of marketing rands are being wasted every year.
But, just who is to blame, one wonders? Avaricious airtime sales people or inexperienced and naive brand managers?