Ambient Media’s Bastard Cousin Sometimes Shines

One of the more interesting forms of advertising to me is that which goes by the name of ambient media. This is when an advertisement is integrated so tightly into its surroundings, that the surroundings (or ambience) become a part of the advertisement itself. A classic local example is a low-key campaign for Lotto, which involved the placement of discrete ads amongst the fresh salmon in at least one supermarket’s deli. In this way Lotto was able to be presented as a possible solution to any would-be buyer’s concern over affording salmon prices. Another local example is the crushed car parked outside the cinema set to be screening Godzilla.

Good ambient media advertising will ideally give the viewer a good thought to ponder, and of course a positive message concerning the promoted product. The placement’s subtlety or cleverness is unlikely to neither cause offence to the audience nor initiate easy copy-cat activity. I love it - it’s advertising that doesn’t talk down to the audience.

However, there exists a poor cousin to such advertising, which my admittedly over-thinking self finds somewhat distasteful. The format in question rests somewhere in between the fun, almost cleverly-anarchistic ambient media discussed above, and the standard, controlled outdoor media such as billboards or posters, which have made leaps in quality and sophistication in recent years.

This ‘in-between’ format has no formal name that I am aware of, but it could be called "Rogernomics advertising". This is an advertising medium based on the lesson given by Roger Douglas in 1984 that no stone should be left unturned in the quest for economic stability and growth - the lesson which has led to user-pays and an admittedly more independent approach to income generation. The lesson has also led to many public utilities and organizations entering into contracts with advertisers which have led to the commercialization of the most hum-drum parts of daily life - some ideas and executions have been brilliant, and some simply have become a crass intrusion of dull advertising messages into already cluttered streetscapes and consumer brains.

Two good examples are worth mentioning. The first is the AdShell bus shelters. To the uninitiated, AdShel is a company which will install, and maintain, stylish and high-quality bus shelters at no or little cost to the local council, in exchange for the ability to include an illuminated billboard in each shelter. These are being rapidly installed throughout the Auckland City Council area at least, and in most cases are providing shelters where none existed previously. AdShel succeeds by initiating a classic ‘win-win’ situation. A council gets to provide its ratepayers with high quality bus-shelters, and the company gets to sell advertising space where little else exists, and where markets and demographics can be quite tightly targeted. Advertisements can also be placed to compliment activities, such as advertising sunscreen at a beachside bus-shelter.

The second example is the BusPak company, which will provide various forms of advertising on a participating bus fleet. Not such a clear win-win as AdShel, but the advertising is usually of such a high standard (especially the full-cover executions), that any travel of an "All Blacks" bus down a street, for example, is only a passing curiosity at the very worst. In addition, the extra funds provided to the bus company will hopefully help reduce the level of public subsidies given to public transport providers by you and me, the taxpayers.

These two examples of "public goods" being used for advertising demonstrate clearly how non-traditional locations and formats can be successfully used by advertisers, with little objection from the public or increased cluttering of our lives.

So having seen what can work so well, it makes the following example seem all the worse - although naming the offending council would be unfair as it may only be one of many around the country. The example to which I refer is the addition of commercial signs to road-name signs. So for example, an everyday sign for "Smith Street" will have a bulky illuminated appendage stating that Joe’s Panelbeaters is just 100m down said street. What is the gain for the public here? No improvement to the original service has been given, the advertisements themselves are dull and seldom amount to more than a name-and-directions, and the result is simply visual clutter and a cheap sell-out on behalf of the offending council. For Joe’s Panelbeaters I guess the main gain is increased brand awareness - certainly not a win-win by any count.

To some, my irritation at this may be puerile or an over-reaction. But my worry is that poor examples such as the road-sign additions will be the thin end of the wedge - remember that when Auckland’s yellow bus fleet was first adorned with advertisements, we were assured that they would be restricted to small panels on the lower halves of the buses - clearly that has changed! So let’s hope that the day will not come, when we have the Council-owned grass verges outside our houses festooned with crass advertisements, and all in the name of keeping rates down.

Jonathan Dodd