• by George Simpson , Featured Contributor, August 3, 2007

The Nielsen Company released a study that said there is a direct correlation between how much a consumer packaged-goods launch spends on media advertising (especially online) and the amount of "buzz" generated for the product by bloggers and social networkers in general. My, how 20th century.

Does this mean that all that drooling over the prospect of monetizing Facebook, MySpace, et al. audiences is unnecessary (not to mention unsanitary)? Millions of early venture dollars and countless sleepless nights are being spent on how to get cuteandwilling@aim to rocket a thinly disguised video ad to "viral status," or post it on her "wall" so that her 809 "friends" will by chance see it. Nielsen seems to suggest that you can parade rest that effort and just jack the normal media channel spend.

What does this say about online buzz makers? That they are not the fiercely independent voices of Absolute Truth in a global chorus of mass advertising-addled consumers? Or that, despite their protests to the contrary, they are as influenced by advertising as those who admit to researchers that although they hate 22 minutes of commercials every hour on network TV, they tend to investigate or try or continue to buy the brands advertised therein?

Nielsen said that online spending was particularly important to get the buzzers buzzing. Aren't these the guys who are supposed to delete their cookies every quarter moon, or download ad-blocking programs to stop being asked if they can smack the monkey? Or fly into a rage if something pops up or under the page they're viewing? (not an unreasonable reaction, but we digress). Wouldn't you also expect these guys would also be heavy DVR users, and when forced to watch something in real time, hit mute at the exact nanosecond a commercial pod begins? Don't they also listen only to paid, commercial-free satellite radio, and keep their eyes rigidly fixed on the editorial columns of print media--worried that if their eyes drift to a display ad, they will lose their virginity (again)? So how can they be influenced by advertising if they do nearly everything humanly possible to avoid it?

There can only be two explanations, both of which will rock your world. One is that advertising has become so pervasive and intrusive that it can't be avoided unless you are struck deaf and blind (an overreaction to commercialism no matter how rampant). Yankelovich estimates that someone living in a city sees 5,000 ad messages a day--and that's just the eye candy they are subjected to at street level. But if you take a look at the claims and counter-claims, you will see that nobody has a clue how many ads you see in a day--and more important, how many you actually pay any attention to. Which brings us to the other explanation: Advertising works.

Yeah, I know. The caveman commercials are moronic, and it is a pain to flip past 55 pages of the September issues of fashion magazines before you even find the table of contents, and it seems silly to put ads in public bathrooms or tattoo them on a prizefighter's back--and there is NOTHING more annoying than a terrestrial radio ad. But, pull the plug on those millions of early venture dollars and countless sleepless nights being spent on trying to figure HOW it works. Strike "engagement" from your vocabulary and tell your customers that measurement doesn't matter because, goddamn it, it just WORKS.

Take the rest of the day off, grab a couple of 40s for the ride and get to the nearest beach (sorry, Kansas City). It's hot as hell in New York today.