If marketing continues to fly under the radar, it’s going to experience a very unpleasant crash

If marketing continues to fly under the radar

jeremy bullmore Marketing Leader

BACK IN 1955, starbursts were a sort of communications prophylactic. The Television Bill had been lengthily and fiercely debated: it was granted more Parliamentary time than any other Bill of the 20th century. When finally enacted in 1954, it broke the BBC’s broadcasting monopoly and ‘independent’ television (neither ‘sponsored’ nor ‘commercial’, please note) became a reality. It was to be funded entirely by advertising. With one curious exception, the only permitted form of advertising was to be spot advertising – and elaborate measures were built into the Act to make sure that there was clear and unambiguous distinction between advertisement and programme content. Unlike the US system, there was to be no blurring of authority, no word from our sponsors. The starburst was a legal requirement – a split second of spiralling graphic that deftly distinguished commercial from programme, and even commercial from commercial. British viewers were left in no doubt that they were watching an advertisement; and, despite its proximity, programme content could remain entirely uncontaminated.

There was a purity about this arrangement, an innocent transparency that disarmed even those opposed to the introduction of a commercial channel. This is what the starburst proclaimed: ‘You are about to see an advertisement. This has been paid for by the advertiser. The advertiser will say only favourable things about his product. You may expect truth but not necessarily the whole truth. Do not expect balance or objectivity. The fact that this advertisement is carried by London Weekend Television does not imply LWT’s endorsement.’

Fifty years on, though, now without starbursts, spot television has more or less retained its fastidious stance. No one is in the slightest doubt that money has changed hands; no one confuses a commercial with programme matter. If a member of the public chooses to be seduced by a commercial’s praise for a product, it’s in the full knowledge that the praise was self-generated, not bestowed by any outside authority.

And in all this, of course, television has only been following its senior medium, print. Display advertisements have always been unmistakably advertisements – and those few that have tried to pose as editorial have been pretty swiftly brought into line. There are, it’s true, things called advertising features – already an oxymoron – but they’re feeble creatures, most of them, and their capacity to fool the punters strictly limited. But over the last ten years or so, things have begun to drift a little. Two phrases, in particular, have entered the marketing lexicon. Consumers are universally acknowledged to have become ‘increasingly sophisticated’ (or, even worse, ‘savvy’); and a great many practitioners have begun to boast of their ability to ‘get in under the radar’.

A certain coyness surrounds both phrases and it’s easy to see why. If increasingly savvy consumers have become a problem, it can only be because they’ve begun to see through our cunning tricks: we’re finding it harder to get away with things. And that, in turn, calls for the invention of new cunning tricks. So what exactly do we mean by getting in under the radar? I think we mean disguising our advertisements as something else. If not, then what exactly?

The increasing reliance of the world’s media on advertising revenues, and the increasing competition between the increasing numbers of different media, makes the maintenance of a scrupulous distinction between advertising and editorial more and more difficult.

Though the recent Nick Davies book, Flat Earth News, has attracted both praise and flak, it’s well worth a read. It’s mainly concerned with the decline of rigour in journalism; for example, when checked against source, 80% of 2,000 news stories that appeared in the four UK quality dailies were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material – drawn either from news agencies or public relations companies (Davies calls this ‘churnalism’).

The readers of those papers, however savvy they may be, will never be certain if they’re reading an honest reporter’s attempt at the presentation of fact – or a hastily re-worked version of a company’s press release.

Product placement is another under-the-radar technique. You may guess when you’ve seen your blockbuster film that the car, the mobile phone and the brand of champagne in the branded bar all owe their noble presence to an exchange of money. But, there again, you may not; and you’ll certainly not be told.

I suggested to a film industry person not long ago that it would be altogether more open if movies acknowledged any contributions from product sponsors in their opening titles: ‘The following companies each contributed $10m towards the production costs of this film.’ I was told that, were this to be the custom, product placement would be a great deal more difficult to negotiate.

In other words, the value of the placement to the product’s company is greater when the audience is kept in ignorance of the fact that the placement was bought. You have to feel just a little uneasy about that, don’t you? I daresay that life peers would value their peerages even more highly if their donations to political parties remained forever undisclosed.

I have little doubt that there’ll be a lot more written before very long about ‘under the radar’ marketing activities. It has all the frisson of The Hidden Persuaders, with a lot more substance to back it up.

As it happens, I’m far from certain that huge harm is being done. If lasting harm does in fact materialise, it’s far more likely to be harm to the marketing community than to our increasingly savvy and confident consumers.

But a trade that openly prides itself on the skill with which it deceives its public is not only unlikely to come top of anyone’s list of respected occupations; it will also render itself less effective.

 

If increasingly savvy consumers have become a problem, it can only be because they’ve begun to see through our cunning tricks: we’re finding it harder to get away with things. And that in turn, calls for the invention of new cunning tricks. So what exactly do we mean by getting in under the radar? In other words, the value of the placement to the product’s company is greater when the audience is kept in ignorance of the fact that the placement was bought. You have to feel just a little uneasy about that, don’t you?

Download PDF

Download PDF