My first reaction when I read this article was “Yes, right on the mark.” But on second thought, I’m not so sure.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the principle objective of advertising is to sell stuff, not create art. It’s great when you can do both, but selling stuff is the reason advertisers pay for ad space. There are lots of award-winning ads that failed to increase sales. There are some ads that people absolutely love, but they couldn’t tell you immediately after seeing it what product was being advertised.
I think advertisers will generally prefer effective over good. So while Heller’s thought is noble, I’m not so sure it’s realistic.
On a somewhat related theme I found this article kind of interesting:
Comments 3
My first reaction when I read this article was “Yes, right on the mark.” But on second thought, I’m not so sure.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the principle objective of advertising is to sell stuff, not create art. It’s great when you can do both, but selling stuff is the reason advertisers pay for ad space. There are lots of award-winning ads that failed to increase sales. There are some ads that people absolutely love, but they couldn’t tell you immediately after seeing it what product was being advertised.
I think advertisers will generally prefer effective over good. So while Heller’s thought is noble, I’m not so sure it’s realistic.
On a somewhat related theme I found this article kind of interesting:
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6322.html?wknews=060710
[Reply]
Posted 10 Jun 2010 at 5:24 pm ¶Interesting Article, it makes you think about what is relative to what you trying to acheive in life as a whole.
[Reply]
Posted 14 Jun 2010 at 11:59 am ¶We’re “too smart”?? Do you read the news?
[Reply]
Posted 19 Jun 2010 at 3:55 pm ¶Post a Comment