So there's this idea that's been floating around
the past number of years about the collapse of media, the
increasing irrelevance of advertising and the consequent death of
the agency business.
Where does this alarmist nonsense come from? TV didn't kill the
movies, duh. The VCR didn't kill TV. O.J. didn't kill Nicole. Maybe
the so-called digital revolution will force the legacy players to
adapt a bit, but -- sheesh -- it's not like this is some sort of
How does AdReview know that? Because we've been reading the comments over at Vimeo, where resides a
short film from Saatchi, Canada, for the FITC Design &
Technology Festival, titled "The Last Advertising Agency on Earth."
The two-minute video is about a fictional agency called MPS&C,
which held a death grip on the status quo until one day it simply
ceased being. All the ephemera of agency life were left behind,
evidence of the fatal affliction of business as usual:
"Filling in timesheets,"explains an English narrator.
"Getting another coffee, playing Foosball. They were carrying on as
they always had, ignorant of a great change going on all around
them that would soon destroy them all. And this was it: the
consumer, to whom the agencies had force-fed their messages for
decades, stopped being passive."
The narrator then displays the artifacts of denial. Photo
loupes, T-squares and, most especially, TV scripts, which the
employees had clung to "even when clients begged for new,
nontraditional ideas. So they simply repurposed their print ads
into clever rich-media banners and glibly suggested that everyone
have a Twitter feed."
And so on till the business was unsustainable. One after another
agencies slipped into oblivion, "because of arrogance and ignorance
and because they chose to ignore the changes going on all around
them. But, in the end, the reasons don't matter. What matters is
there were people once in this advertising agency. And one day,
Then the FITC title card and the following pitch: "You really,
really, really should go."
OK, so AdReview would be most enthusiastic, not only because the
video sums up the whole "chaos scenario" scenario in about 90,000
fewer words than some people we know, but also because it deftly
and amusingly documents the anthropology of agency life. Never mind
the loupe; check out the bong, the panties pinned to the bulletin
board, the beer bottle, the PostIt note inscribed, "Bad ads make
Also, the ad does pitch the advertised product as the solution
to the stated problem. Which, despite the dubiousness of the claim,
is probably more than the late mps&c ever did. That's why we're
bestowing those three stars.
Sadly, though, the cleverness may be in service of a poor
strategy, because in order to sell the customer on a solution, the
customer must first recognize a problem. This gets back to the
comment section, where a major theme was to deny the premise.
Here's one from a guy named Adam:
The internet isn't going to destroy the ad agency. Blogs aren't
going to destroy TV. The internet forces a more open dialogue,
sure, and makes it harder to cover up a bad product with a good
The internet is the world's largest communications tool,
connecting you with thousands of people you wouldn't otherwise be
able to connect with. Good advertising understands this. Bad
Thus a fine example of the standard of critical thinking at
modern ad agencies -- prompting the core question:
If that's how the audience sees the world they inhabit, what's
the use of trying to educate them?