The ad industry’s self-regulating watchdog recommendation that DirecTV should pull or change TV spots featuring actor Rob Lowe and various odd or creepy alter-egos tells us at least three things about advertising:
First, a little controversy never hurts, especially if it seems unintended (i.e. not purposefully in bad or contentious taste). The campaign was hugely successful and already slated to end, and the NAD’s finding that many of its claims were unsupported isn’t likely to make any new customers question their purchases; rather, it’s a textbook definition of “fine print” for everyone else, so the brand can benefit from the visually hilarious creative getting additional free exposure. DirecTV’s response to the challenge was quotably brilliant, too:
“[The company] continues to believe that the various Rob Lowe advertisements are so outlandish and exaggerated that no reasonable consumer would believe that the statements being made by the alter-ego characters are comparative or need to be substantiated.”
Lesson: Take risks with creative, because it can have extra legs or, in this case, scrawny arms.
Second, accuracy standards are somewhat subjective. If you wanted to be a stickler for definitive truths backed by explicit proof, there’d be no advertising (or marketing communications overall). Will eating a cheeseburger really make you smile uncontrollably, or driving a luxury car transform you into an ubermensch? Does God actually find dates for people on ChristianMingle.com? In press releases, are companies unequivocal “leaders” or “best?”
The contrast between Lowe's normal appearance and his abnormal other selves was a stark “good vs. bad” illustration that worked almost unconsciously, and not as an overt comparison of functionality, which is why I believe the spots performed so well. Maybe his declarations of stats and rankings weren’t supported by facts, but they were certainly defensible as opinions or beliefs (he should have simply prefaced them as such). I’m not sure the spots needed them at all.
Lesson: Meaning in a broad sense can be more “truthful” than any collection of disparate factoids.
Third, why isn’t this episode a marketing opportunity for the ad industry? The very idea that there’s a formal, somewhat compellingly real way for businesses to be held accountable for the accuracy of their claims, however imperfectly, is as incredibly important as it is rare.
Who ensures that bloggers disclose what or how they’ve been rewarded for their posts? Do retweets or likes come with attribution to the bots or other manipulations that fuel them? Do “native ads” get reviewed for accuracy as rigorously as real editorial? How about fact-checking all that branded content that gets published online?
Advertising has a bad rap that’s mostly underserved, especially when contrasted to the other, more factually pliable media solutions that threaten its use. There are no standards for many of these tools, beyond a vague reliance of the wisdom of ‘the crowd’ to separate truth from fiction. Rigorous self-regulation (both on the suit and compliance fronts) should earn more respect for ads, yet I'd wager most consumers have no idea what it is (or why it matters).
Lesson: The ad industry is missing a needed opportunity to reaffirm its relevance.
