Comment

Why this Super Bowl was no watershed for UGC advertising

Platform: Internet | Author: David Eastman, worldwide CEO at Agency.com | Source: NMA magazine | Published: 15.02.07

Email article | Printer Friendly | Comment on this articlemore Comment

Over the past 20 years, nearly $2bn (£1.03bn) has been poured into advertising during the Super Bowl. This year, the price for a 30-second spot was closing in on $3m (£1.54m). This year was also meant to herald the emergence of a new genre competing for the hearts, minds and wallets of the viewing public: user-generated content.

As traditional ad agencies wake up to the fact that it was consumers who generated more compelling brand communications in 2006 than any single agency, they're now...

Article continues below

... falling over themselves to use 'authentic' promotional fare created by users (designed to support the marketing and communication missions of the sponsoring corporations, natch), to cash in on this fact.

This year the NFL, Chevrolet and Doritos all had a crack. I imagine that the ad agencies would have been talking to their clients about the fact that 'everyone's doing it these days' and 'it'll be really cool for people to see your brand doing this sort of thing' and 'I know the whole putting-your-brand-on-Second-Life thing didn't really work, but this is the Super Bowl'.

It must have seemed like a neat way to tick the user-generated content box, but how good were the final ads? The bald truth is that, once finished, none of the spots looked much different to the ads that surrounded them. In the end, Madison Avenue outsmarted the barbarians at the gate; amateur lost out to auteur. The agencies inserted themselves in between the content and the audience and either messed with or re-shot and polished, depending on your perspective, the content itself.

So is the Super Bowl the right place for this sort of content? Certainly not in the way it's currently being produced. At the moment it's all talk. The agency may talk about involving consumers, but it's still the agency that wants the final say.

The message is still being controlled by the agency and communicated at the consumer. And anyway, how many brands are going to allow unadulterated user-content to fill a $3m spot and mess with their brand attributes in front of a 100m people? Right now, seeing ad agencies experiment with this stuff is like watching your parents dance at your 18th birthday party. They mean well and they think they've got it sussed, but you hope no one's watching.

If traditional and interactive agencies alike really want to get consumers involved and engaging with the brand, then changes in the traditional agency structure are going to have to take place. They need to be prepared to talk with the consumers, not to or at them. A greater emphasis should be placed on collective creativity - within both the agency and consumer groups - harnessing the passion of the consumers and not distilling it before it reaches the public.

And we need to think positively about giving brands over to the consumers to play with. Be brave. The final ad shouldn't be the end of the conversation - ads need to open themselves so that those consumers can continue shaping and improving the idea long after the ad agency has left the building.

They will blog about it, they will remix your ads, they will endorse your brand and influence others within their communities, creating word of mouth that has immeasurable benefits. The people who can have the biggest influence over a brands' success are those consumers who are the most passionate about it.

David Eastman is worldwide CEO at Agency.com