Advertising does not have to be entertainment

This week was the one day of the year when people are interested in advertising. I'm talking, of course, mainly about people working in marketing. The ads around the Super Bowl are the biggest investment of the year for those few companies, and the conversations around those ads are going on weeks before the event itself. 

The Super Bowl tends to create the illusion that people are interested in advertising. I'm not saying there aren't such people, but the vast majority of people are not interested in advertising on any day of the year. Not even when advertising is supposed to be entertainment.

However, the attractiveness of advertising is not the only condition for it to work. Interesting content certainly helps to create a memorable impression, which is one possible strategy and may be desirable. However, if the attractiveness of the idea is not related to the brand but to the phenomenon created around it, it is possible that the brand will not be remembered. You know the feeling: "That funny car ad, whose was it now?". 

Traditional, "non-entertainment" advertising still has the potential to create awareness, attract attention and thus influence the success of brands. 

I fully admit that my own thinking on this subject has changed during my career, as I used to think (now naively, I think) that all marketing should always be as interesting as possible. Many of the best known and most successful brands have never made a single interesting advertisement, but have had enough exposure at the right time in the right place. If you don't believe me, take a look at Byron Sharp's book "How Brands Grow?" and the research presented in it.

Marketing entertainment is a term that has been used to refer to marketing that also aims to be interesting entertainment. The assumption is that advertising is not inherently interesting, but by making marketing entertainment, it can be used to get people interested in brands. Hand-warmed content is not inherently interesting. 

However, creating a marketing gimmick or using it to create a phenomenon is difficult. That's why I personally consider marketing entertainment a risk and would approach it as an investment in the way that risk requires. A start-up with a small amount of capital can perhaps take a risk if it is a conscious decision. A large company with a large advertising budget can, for example, risk investing 10% of its advertising budget in entertainment if it ensures that its success does not depend on whether the entertainment idea is right or wrong.

Advertising and marketing can be straightforward and play it safe, so to speak. Advertising does not have to be entertainment to work. Content that puts the brand at the centre and is not intended to be anything more than an advertisement can be included in this non-entertainment category.

At the other end of the spectrum, Jana could be seen as marketing entertainment, where the brand is rarely at the centre, but rather surfing the wave of a fun idea or entertaining content. For example, the brand may have enabled something to happen. It is not inherently interesting, and by no means a guarantee of success. 

This article was published in Markkinointiuutiset 18.2.2022