The AdNews NGen Blog: The court of public opinion

It’s hard to imagine but outside of adland there is a proportion of society that are less than fond of the advertising industry (shock horror!). In fact, I would feel confident stating that, generally speaking, a lot of the Australian population would have a negative viewpoint to the role advertising plays in our society.

It is understandable why some people would have this opinion as there are previous examples of advertising campaigns that, in hindsight, are inappropriate and unethical. The most obvious examples include the tobacco industry and the fast food industry. The latter of which deliberately targeted children’s programing with their campaigns.

However, what both these above examples have in common is that they were only considered inappropriate after a significant shift in public opinion about these issues within society. This shift was, in part, the result of a change in the way that these issues were framed and reported on within the mass media. Which ultimately led to new policies and codes of ethics prohibiting them from continuing to advertise. Public opinion is a very powerful thing, so much so that politicians make careers out of analysing, interpreting and positioning themselves on the basis of public opinion.

It is kind of ironic then that ultimately the court of public opinion is where all brands and products are being judged. And it is the advertiser's job to ensure that the consumer (the most important person in advertising) has all the information they need to act on the desired outcome, whether it's to click on that banner ad, visit a retail outlet or most commonly, make a purchase. Whatever stage of the communication process you are in - planning, buying or creative - having the consumer at the heart of what you do is a core criteria in having a successful campaign.

Yet it feels as though every few years there is a particular marketing campaign that news outlets or social commentators consider newsworthy and begin to commentate on. If this remains ongoing it can be the beginning of the public opinion shift. The industry that comes to my mind over the last few years is the gambling industry and particularly their involvement and sponsorship in sport. This seems like a logical fit but there are arguments suggesting that the scope of this should be restricted. Yet it is reasonable to suggest that these brands would have agencies, marketers and teams all working very hard behind the scenes to deliver a campaign based on the audience, their viewing habits, their behavior and therefore the market that exists.

So it’s not hard to understand why people don’t like us pesky advertisers when we are continually probing, analysing and developing communication that reflects society.  But perhaps adland can be a little misunderstood at times as it is often providing the consumer with a choice or an alternative that exists within the market.

Andrew Barrett
Media executive
OMD Melbourne