SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Almost all of the consumer product giant’s advertising cuts in the period came from digital, finance chief Jon Moeller said on its earnings call Thursday. The company targeted ads that could wind up on sites with fake traffic from software known as “bots,” or those with objectionable content.
“What it reflected was a choice to cut spending from a digital standpoint where it was ineffective, where either we were serving bots as opposed to human beings or where the placement of ads was not facilitating the equity of our brands,” he said.
...
It’s unclear whether P&G has shifted more spending to other media, including television, as it tweaks its digital spending approach. TV networks have been making an aggressive case that marketers have over-allocated budgets to the dark alleys of digital, and should move ad money back into TV.
Moving ad budget back to TV would be a brilliant move. Septuagenarians present a brisk market for Pampers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nuke on Sunday July 30 2017, @05:35PM (2 children)
Advertising pays! We are told it, so it must be true. And it is true - it pays the advertising industry $billions.
It is a different matter whether it pays the clients who are paying the advertising industry, the ones who pay out those billions. One day it will dawn on these clients that, on the scale that many of them spend money on advertising, they are mostly wasting it. Hopefully, Proctor and Gamble are the first of many to see the light.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @02:41AM
> Advertising pays
In the car industry it's well known that if you *don't* advertise, you don't have a chance of selling many of a new model of car[1].
If you *do* advertise, then you have a chance of selling some of your new model.
[1] This applies for cars produced in high volume, not talking about limited production of exotic cars.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday July 31 2017, @02:13PM
There's a little more to it than that. Companies and the brand managers within a company like P&G don't really spend that much on the actual ad campaigns. For example, i created the entire digital presence for Johnson&Johnson and about a score of its over-the-counter brands back when i worked on Madison Avenue. Its budgets for digital were on the order of $30-50K, and those were major brands of mouthwash and such that you've heard of. Years later they still run that same material i produced, so the marginal cost of it is quite low. Likewise when they shoot a TV spot they run the same commercial year after year unless the ad backfired or something.
The deeper reason why ad companies make so much money is because the companies and brand managers use them for product direction and deniability. That is, the ad companies are a sort of professional whipping boy. If a campaign goes well, the companies and brand managers always take all the credit, and if it doesn't the agencies are always to blame. The brand managers are only there to stamp their passports on the way to higher positions. They have no strategic vision or creativity of their own. The resultant psychological dynamic is a bit messed up, in that the ad people are depressed and disgruntled because their creativity and souls are whored out to godless corporations, and the brand managers are egotistical aholes who abusive to the people at the agencies they secretly resent because they have creative talent. That dynamic is worst among the financial clients like banks.
The whole field has been changing, though, thanks to the internet and people like us who are actively sabotaging their comfy status quo. They don't know what to do, which is why they're flailing around like this. That puts a small smile on my face.
Washington DC delenda est.