Grunwald: Advertising: What Isn't Working?
Interesting discussion across a range of topics.
Has advertising lost touch with consumers – and what role have its 'people professionals' played? If a strongly left-leaning, middle class monoculture has evolved, is the industry in any position to preach about diversity? Doesn't anyone care about selling stuff anymore – and is it too late to turn this around?
In this episode Tanya takes a deep dive into what isn’t working in the UK’s advertising industry, in conversation with the fabulously frank copywriting legend Stever Harrison.
Why be so specific about one industry? Because – although there are universal themes, such as group think and a lack of moral courage – it’s become clear that every industry faces its own problems, when it comes to talent, leadership and culture. Who is attracted to that industry? How has it evolved? What makes it vulnerable to bad ideas – and what explains its failure to address problems which are glaringly obvious to outsiders?
Tanya's path crossed with Steve’s, so we thought we'd start with advertising. In this rich, varied and often-funny conversation, you’ll hear them ask:
HOW HAVE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES CHANGED THE INDUSTRY? Do they want to make great adverts – or do they want to save the world? If young people think capitalism is bad (or at least a bit naff), what do they think advertising is? Has the industry mis-sold itself to a generation of young talent?
IS THE AD INDUSTRY ‘WOKE-WASHING’ ITSELF? While championing on-screen race and gender diversity (think Jaguar and Bud Light), Steve says Adland has failed to address its own biases and monoculture – and is now staffed almost exclusively by a ‘middle class, left-leaning, metropolitan elite.’
IF ‘SOCIAL PURPOSE’ ADVERTISING WAS AN EVDIENCE-FREE FAD, WHY DID EVERYONE GO ALONG WITH IT FOR YEARS? This is a shocker. For over a decade, marketing giant Edelman pushed flimsy data claiming Gen Z cared more about progressive politics than product or price, Steve says. When FMCG giants Proctor & Gamble and Unilever lapped it up, every ad agency followed, as it suited their personal politics. Ads that sold nothing won awards, and the industry press was silent. Had these organisations had healthy, mixed cultures which encouraged challenge, would the business case for social purpose ads have been rejected much sooner? How much money was wasted by clients and agencies during this period, because their culture discouraged internal debate, and incentivised nodding along?
DID THESE BAD IDEAS BLEED INTO EMPLOYER BRANDING? Did employer branding agencies like Havas People and Thirty Three borrow Edelman’s iffy ideas about Gen Z’s priorities, and push brands towards positioning themselves as being ethical, socially responsible graduate employers – even if they weren’t particularly? (Does this explain the disillusionment many 20something staff are expressing now?)
WHY HAVEN’T WE SEEN MORE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS? The fear factor is huge in advertising, says Steve, who likens challenging Adland’s holding companies to ‘playing poker against the richest gamblers at the table. And, even if you win, you’ll never work again…’
WHAT HAPPENED TO LEADERSHIP? Ad agency execs are well paid, and not stupid. But Steve says they are preoccupied with social status, and their relationship and clients has felt increasingly coercive as budgets have been redirected towards digital agencies delivering cheaper, quicker results. With these dynamics at play, will leaders admit their part in creating the industry’s current problems? Or will they just push on, hiring the same people and repeating the same mistakes that continue to leave the rest of us baffled about what has gone so wrong?