Short interview with Mike Chapman, editor at Adweek

AotW: Which advertising award show do you think is the most prestigious and why? Where does CLIO stand?
MC: Winning a Clio award is an internationally-recognized sign of prestige. Unlike many of the newer award schemes it has been going for half a century and is therefore well established as the foremost mark of creative excellence in advertising. The only close international equivalent would be would be the awards given out at the annual Cannes advertising festival, although it is arguable that the growing multiplicity of award categories has diluted the prestige associated with winning a Cannes Lion. The event in the South of France undoubtedly draws a larger crowd, perhaps in part because of its location!

AotW: Do you think the role of small hot shop agencies will have more significance in the next 5-10 years than today? Are we seeing a decline in the popularity of large multinational advertising networks among clients?
MC: There can be little doubt that small, specialist shops have become more significant and will continue to do so. The impetus of media fragmentation alone will ensure this. But they will not necessarily become more significant at the expense of larger agencies and networks. The latter bring important economies of scale and are by and large remaking themselves in bid to be as responsive and creative as newer, smaller shops. Over time the picture that will emerge is probably a more complex matrix of competition and partnerships between specialists and large networks.

AotW: One-to-one advertising is gaining momentum over mass media. Do you think on the long term mass media will seize to exist and all communication will be personal?
MC: Even in the long term, firms will need to get messages to large audiences, but there can be little doubt that going to the mass market will become less common. The rise of online social networks and techniques such as behavioral targeting facilitated by the Internet will mean that specific groups will receive marketing messages that, in theory, are much more relevant to their needs and tastes. So marketing communication will become less ‘mass’ and more personal but it is unlikely that ‘all communications will be personal.

AotW: Is TV really dead? Is the significance shrinking? What's taking its place? Online?
MC: TV advertising is far from dead. According to researcher eMarketer, US spending on TV advertising will have increased by nearly 3% in 2008 to a total of $70 billion. Though 2009 will inevitably see a fall, the total is likely to remain above $67 billion through 2010. US consumers are, however, multi-tasking more than ever, which means that the online audience is growing faster than the TV audience and the ad dollars are following; eMarketer projects that having reached $24 billion in 2008, US online ad spending will total $26 billion in 2009. Print ad spending is a whole different story...

1 comment

Guest's picture

Programmes such as the X Factor demonstrate that TV isn't dead. Programmes such as the X Factor don't rely on traditional advertising methods as much as popular programmes did 20 or 30 years ago. But revenue is made in a whole bunch of other ways. Which is why people in advertising now have to be skilled / good at a range of things (marketing in general, publicity, PR, and so on) not just traditional advertising.

Log in or register to post comments