I’ll say one thing: if legislation regarding advertising alcohol brands on outdoor mediums stays put, it will be an admittance by the industry to the ineffective nature of the medium.
Why? I made a short 2-point list.
It boils down to one thing: the Department of Transport must decide whether outdoor advertising is effective. If it is, it will be banned. If it’s not, it will stay…
1. Media owners and advertisers are desperate – admitting that outdoor advertising doesn’t work.
All of the sudden, advertisers are saying that there is no proof that billboard ads aid in building brands or even selling products – let alone contribute to abuse – this to protect their case. To me there is a fundamental problem with this statement. The efficacy of outdoor advertising is in essence what an advertiser pays for when they slap their logo and product on a piece of steel standing outside. Am I the only one seeing the irony in this ridiculous stance? Why on earth is the emphasis of the argument then being placed on how there is no proof that it works, implying that it’s a redundant medium?
“The literature demonstrates no cause or link between alcohol beverage advertisements and particular drinking patterns resulting in problems,” was the ARA’s conclusion in a February interview with The Star, and seems to be the stand that related advertisers and media owners took, as stressed in the Sunday Times on 28 June.
2. Playing the ‘economy card’ is a surefire sign that an argument has no legs to stand on… especially when a marketing budget will only be shifted from one medium to the other and not fully removed from the advertising industry altogether.
“Pulling millions of rands from outdoor advertising will hurt the advertising industry, and in effect, the economy,” the general statement from those affected rings*. I believe that line must be rephrased to “pulling millions from outdoor advertising will hurt media owners who actually own billboards and other outdoor outlets, while lining the pockets of other more effective, measurable mediums”. In most cases, liquor brands are assigned a set marketing budget. With the removal of outdoor from the equation bespoke budget will logically be assigned to an alternative medium. The people who will suffer are those relying on revenue from outdoor advertising, not the advertising industry.
To me this looks like a “if we can get COSATU all over this, we won’t have to worry” tactic, which is a very desperate attempt to derail possible legislation. The budget is there. It’s going to be used for advertising and marketing. It will filter into the economy. Are we living in a country where we force companies to use self-proclaimed redundant media for the sake of ailing businesses? Or do we evolve from this situation, stimulating job creation in another sector of the industry?
Publicis has jumped on the bandwagon, launching changetheconversation.co.za, an over-dramatised micro site that lets you choose between disagreeing with the proposed legislation, or agreeing with the legislation because “I don’t need a job”. Very, very dramatic.
I work in advertising. I obviously don’t support any notion that might influence the advertising in a bad way. I do however feel that when you are trying to argue for something, you cannot change the rules halfway through by sinking the ship that brought in the money in the first place. Saying outdoor advertising is ineffective is a stupid thing to do, especially when you’re trying to sustain its future relationship with the alcohol industry.
I know, I am sounding very idealistic – it’s just that I get extremely irritated when I hear child-like reasoning and contradictions that support an obviously lost cause. The bottom line is that the Department of Transport will essentially decide how effective outdoor advertising is.
*As an aside, I have to mention that I forgot the Sunday Times at home, as I’m writing this from my desk at the office. All quotes are taken from my semi-photographic memory.
