« January 2008 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Ad review
Advertising
Marketing
Media
Online marketing
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
Stan's betaBlog: media marketing communications culture
Thursday, 10 January 2008
Change in our lifetime: Twenty-five years on
Topic: Marketing

I moderated a roundtable discussion at the Institute of Communications and Advertising’s Future Flash conference last spring in which we had more than a dozen of Canada’s leading ad agency heads speaking on questions like what were the biggest changes they’ve seen in the marketing industry, what were the big opportunities and challenges these days, what was keeping them awake at night, etc., etc.


In our pre-event e-mail exchanges one participant, Taxi chair Paul Lavoie, turned the tables on me, and put some big picture questions right back at me:
“Think of the year 1983 and then think of today. From your unique perspective and experience, what are some of the biggest changes. What remains the same?

“What are some of the biggest HYPED up crap you’ve witnessed, reported on over these years?
Paul”

I’ve been meaning to clean up my quick e-mail back to Paul as a post since I started this blog (in fact I meant for it to be my debut post, but got sidetracked). I finally got around to it this week. So here are my thoughts on how the marketing and media world has changed, and hasn’t, in the past quarter century since Michael Jackson reigned on the pop charts, Return of the Jedi ruled the box office, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pierre Trudeau strode the earth like giants and Microsoft released the first version of Word:

Biggest changes:
Where to start?
1) Global, publicly traded agency networks didn’t really exist, and certainly dominate to the today’s degree, back in ’83. I think that was the year Saatchi bought it’s first holdings in Canada, kicking off an almost decade long run of big deal after big deal. Think of all the domestic agencies that have been rolled into FCB alone over the years (Ronalds Reynolds, Herrod & Merlin to name just two shops).
2) Ditto the consolidation and globalization of clients.
3) I do think the best ad creative is in fact better and more relevant now than 25 years ago (although I’m sure we’ll find today’s messaging quaint and clunky when we look back from 2033).
4) Unbundled media planning and buying (and everything else). What a concept. Still radical in Canada until the late 80s, and in the U.S. until the mid-90s, now it’s the norm.
5) The Web is now the driver of everything (as the folks at trendwatching.com call it, “online oxygen”)… and it didn’t really exist as we know it until about 10 years ago.
6) The pace of everything is sooo much faster. Remember when we’d FAX important documents back and forth overnight, and we all thought that was fast.
7) Consumers really do have the upper hand now in the relationship with marketers and agencies.

Things that haven’t changed?

1) Consumers always really have had the upper hand in the relationship. We just can see the impact almost instantly now. There’s no more hiding from that reality or just giving it lip service. The things that succeed still have to meet real wants and desires of consumers. They must give them real value.
2) Big ideas still rule (even if the tools we use and the pace of implementation have changed dramatically).
3) The “next great thing” always changes the game, and usually grows the pie. And when it comes to media, no medium has ever truly disappeared. Specialty TV, the Web, free commuter newspapers, digital signage… sure things become more competitive for the established players every time something new arrives, but in the end the well never goes dry.
4) You still can’t cut and shrink your way to success. There might be a short-term boost in those tactics, but long term you’ve got to deliver real value (see # 1) sometimes you have to make some risky bets.

The biggest hype?
Honestly, there’ve been so many exaggerations –usually with small stakes: useless product claims, hollow boasts of world firsts that don’t stand to scrutiny, - over the years, nothing stands out as over the top.
Maybe “media convergence…” The idea that owning both the pipes and cables and a multiplicity of media properties can lead to effective cross pollination and will add up to more than the sum of their parts just never seems to have borne fruit. Yes, there are some very impressive collections of assets concentrated in a few hands, and there have been some synergistic successes, but no full portfolio running like a well-oiled machine.
Two more “hypes” that I didn’t jot down last spring: The revolutionary clout of the baby boomers and the unrecognized power of women in the marketplace.
Not a week has gone by in my career when someone hasn’t issued a release or pitched a story based on the startling fact that the “baby boomers are aging…” and that product or service X is poised to cash in on their extraordinary new life stage habits. Now that they are becoming seniors, we’re hearing yet again –this time from the likes of Moses Znaimer, in his latest venture - that the boomers are an underestimated market.
Ditto, every few years since the turn of the 20th century (forget 1983) someone, usually a consultant or pundit or media vendor with a related service or product offering, rediscovers the fact that women control roughly 80% of consumer spending, and yet marketing efforts directed at them never come close to that kind of per cent of spend.
There, as I wrote to Paul at the time: “that’s a start on my first book ;)”


Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 11:48 PM EST
Updated: Thursday, 10 January 2008 11:52 PM EST
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
The Writers' strike: What are words worth?
Topic: Media
The Hollywood writers’ strike is now, what, nine weeks old, and I’ve got to say on one level I’ve hardly noticed it.

There’s been a ton of commentary on what the strike “means” and how it will play out. There have been predictions that we would we all tune out the re-runs and spend even more time on Youtube and Facebook and with our Xboxes, Playstations and Nintendos. There’s even been some suggestion that it will be a boon for Canadian made movies and TV programming, as a deal was done with writers here earlier last year and the pipeline, such as it is, of Cancon hasn’t been shut off. (Wait for it.) I liked the headline in Variety early on that noted the movie studios worries that without the talk show forum for chatting up holiday releases, the box office would suffer-which appears to have come to pass. (Not a lot of predictions that we’d read more books.)

For most people, the writers’ strike is so far still an abstract event that’s had little impact on their entertainment consumption routines. Our family’s TV media habits in the past couple of years has devolved primarily to DVDs and reruns of Law & Order and CSI (all of them, which can pretty much fill your viewing day) on A&E, Spike and –for now- History (and with a two year old in the house, I should say it seems like Treehouse is on ALL THE TIME around here). So why would we notice any difference?

Those paying attention, however, should start noticing the difference in the coming days and weeks. Fresh U.S. TV content reserves are getting depleted and reruns will start to dominate the airwaves. High profile awards shows will soon either canceled or stripped back. Case in point, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association confirmed yesterday that it will announce its 65th Golden Globes Awards with an hour-long press conference on January 13 rather than the full blown televised gala. The writers’ guild apparently weren’t prepared to let actors cross picket lines without incident, so there’d be, as the Globe and Mail’s TV columnist John Doyle would have it, no “frocks” on view. Still NBC plans to air the press conference in its entirety.

The programming most immediately impacted by the strike on a day-to-day basis has been the big talk late night shows. And even there I hardly noticed. Personally, I’ve been finding my diet of the kind of stuff the late night talk show hosts do –either themselves, or others like them- online, on my schedule, for some time now anyway.

But, as we all know from the wall-to-wall media coverage, the big guys, Letterman, Leno, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are back on the air, Letterman with writers owing to special side deal –which he can do because his show is produced by with his own production company-, the others without. For most late night viewers the biggest revelation of the strike probably has been, as Letterman –or one of his writers- put it on his return top ten list: “what, someone actually writes this crap?” So far the writer-less hosts have been getting by on gags about not having writers, and a lot of unscripted talk with guests. How long that stays interesting remains to be seen.

But make no mistake, despite this “phony war” period not unlike the many months in 1939-40 when Germany, Britain and France were at war but firing very few shots at each other, the writers’ strike is important and could in a lot of ways shape the future of media as we know it…or at the very least accelerate or decelerate the trends already under well way.

Beyond the ephemera about of whether the Oscar’s can possibly go on, which big star or politician will dare to cross Jon and Stephen’s picket lines and whether Jay can write jokes for himself, this is ultimately a clash over where the money is going to come from and–more importantly–go as the Internet inevitably becomes the dominant entertainment conduit.

It’s notable that both sides in this engagement are assuming that the Web is going to, in effect, swallow our existing media channels. The debate is about just how much money there will be out there to share, and how quickly it can be tapped to its maximum potential.

In this, I must say it does seem like the media owners are talking out of both sides of their mouths. As this delicious video, created in the strike’s early weeks by writers from The Daily Show underscores, the big entertainment conglomerates are telling shareholders and investors there’s gold in them thar hills, while pleading poverty to writers. (Yes this is pure propaganda, but it’s great stuff… further evidence that you don’t need a Daily Show to get Daily Show style humour. And isn’t it wonderful to see Sumner Redstone’s own words played back on him.)

One of the more provocative arguments about the strike’s import I’ve seen can be found in Todd Merriman’s commentary piece posted on Online Media Daily Dec. 3. Merriman sees the strike as the beginning of the end for TV networks, movie studios and cable companies, which he points out bring less and less to the table as intermediaries between content creators and content producers. “Isn't it inevitable that the television simply becomes akin to an all-you-can eat buffet-pulling content from a million sources, rather than a pre-set menu prepared by the mediocre chefs at NBC Universal, Viacom, and Disney, etc. delivered to your table by those ill-tempered waiters at Time Warner, Cox and Comcast?”

Merriman argues there’s nothing stopping every creator of content from doing a deal with a venture capital fund, rather than a network of film studio, and using the Web and buzz to find an audience. What happens, he asks, when, say, the NFL pulls a Radiohead and decides it can show its content directly and exclusively to football fans via the net and cut out TV networks altogether, thus keeping all and subscription revenues to themselves?  

I do think Merriman’s doomsday predictions are a bit extreme. The Viacoms and Disney’s, or companies like them, are not going to disappear in the new media future. But they will inevitably morph. The simple reason is both content creators and consumers, on the whole, don’t have the inclination to do it all themselves.

Most people like being waited on, even if it is by “ill-tempered waiters”, rather than foraging for every scrap and putting it all together in an appealing menu and setting the table themselves. Most are willing to pay something to have all that done for them.

There are of course exceptions, but likewise most creators, including writers, frankly don’t have the time, energy or disposition to create and maintain their own distribution and marketing channels. They create content, and it takes enough out of most of them to do it. Most are content to potentially make a little or even a lot less than they might if they did all that other stuff themselves too. That said, they do want to get paid more for their efforts and they rightly see an opening to do so. The fact that they can, in this media era, do their own direct to consumers distribution means they have more leverage with the media companies than in the past.

Just how much more leverage remains to be seen. But when the writers guild and big film and TV companies come to an agreement as to what words are worth, we can expect web entertainment to go into overdrive.

Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 1:19 PM EST
Updated: Tuesday, 8 January 2008 1:32 PM EST
Tuesday, 4 December 2007
The most influential Canadian trade magazines
Topic: Media

As I’ve mentioned in a couple of recent posts, Masthead is endeavoring to select the 20 most influential Canadian magazines of all time… and rank them. And they’d like to include, if possible, trade or b-to-b titles. They’ve invited me onto the selection panel in part to help with that. And I’ve been using this blog to kind of think out loud about it.

Masthead editor Marco Ursi has suggested on the discussion board that Marketing magazine, among others, ought to be considered for the 20 most influential magazines list.

Sure, I’m biased, but I could easily make the case for Marketing, having spent more than 20 years with it. Certainly in my decade plus as the top editorial person, the magazine was either the number one, two or three performer (usually vying with CA Magazine) at the Kenneth R. Wilson Awards recognizing excellence in the Canadian business press. Rare was the year our editorial team didn’t pick up at least three or four gold or silver prizes. And that kind of record was also the case under my immediate predecessors Wayne Gooding and Colin Muncie. In fact Muncie, who was editor from 1972 to 1992 and a senior staffer for the better part of a decade before that, was one of the first recipients of the Canadian Business Press’s Harvey S. Southam lifetime achievement award. Going further back, when the marketing industry’s leading association, the Association of Canadian Advertisers, instituted it’s lifetime achievement award in 1941, its very first recipient was W.A. Lydiatt, who purchased Marketing in 1918 and was owner/publisher/editor until selling it to Maclean Hunter in 1954.

There are all kinds of tales of colourful characters that worked on Marketing over its now near century of publication. My favorite character has to be Bertram Brooker, an adman/ journalist/ novelist/ poet/ actor/ artist and apparently general gadabout in Toronto during the second quarter of the 20th century. But as historian Russell Johnston puts it in his book Selling Themselves: the Emergence of Canadian Advertising, Brooker was “no amateur.” Brooker is credited as being the first Canadian to put on an exhibit of abstract art in Toronto. He was the winner of the first Governer General’s prize for fiction in 1937 with his novel Think of the Earth. And between stints working as a copywriter at a number of Toronto ad agencies in the 1920s and 30s, he also worked as a writer for the Globe and for Marketing during this era, acting as publisher from 1924 to 1926. He is thought to have arranged for Group of Seven member, and friend, Frank Johnston to redesign the magazine’s masthead in late 1920s.

Still, I’d argue any trade publication worth its salt could boast of staffers or contributors with a similar intimate history with its target readership. Marketing’s advantage on that front is it has had a relatively large staff throughout a longstanding existence, and the fact that it does cover a world that overlaps the one we magazine people work in.

And there’s the rub on which trade titles had the most influence: its almost like you’re picking which business sectors are more important by selecting any particular journal as being more influential overall. And on many levels you really can only judge a book if you understand and know the sector intimately.

I’d argue Masthead is a great example of a trade title that does an exemplary job of serving its readers’ needs and having a wide influence on a relatively tight budget. But then, it is also the trade title for my business, so I pay a lot of attention to it. But, we’ve got to be honest with ourselves here: the magazine industry, while important to us, isn’t the most important or influential segment of the Canadian print media sector let alone the entire Canadian economy. (I’d also argue, maybe on a technicality, that as good and influential as Masthead is, it would be bad form to allow itself to be included on its own list.)

Similarly, I’ve always admired the good job Quill & Quire does, and it for sure has always had a disproportionately huge footprint in the culture/book industry. But there again, it’s something closer to my heart than, say, the trucking industry. (And I say that with no disrespect to Today's Trucking, which is also a consistent award winner at the KRWs, and whose long time editorial director Rolf Lockwood was also a Harvey Southam lifetime achievement award winner in 2003.)

By the standard of true influence being linked to the industry a magazine serves, The Northern Miner, around since 1915, should be a big contender, although I honestly know little about it. Oilweek is another quality title in a major economic sector for this country. So is Pulp and Paper Canada. An Investment Executive or Advisor’sEdge clearly have clout in the big money area (and I’d give Advisor’sEdge extra marks for setting some new high standards in Canadian trade magazine art direction in its early years in the 1990s). Canadian Lawyer, Lawyers Weekly and relative newcomer Lexpert –not to mention the bar association’s own book, National- are all very well done and have significant clout in an important segment of society. Medical Post has a long record of award winning journalism in a sector that is literally life and death for Canadians. Any one of them is more important and has more influence with readers with more influence than, say, a Marketing magazine, Masthead or Quill & Quire.

Other trade titles that I think have been very good strong in recent years, based largely but not exclusively on their KRW performances, include:

Azure in design, architecture and art (so good, you don’t even think of it as a trade title).

CA Magazine. Yes accountants deserve a good read too, and they get it. And no one has had a better run at the KRWs for the past decade.

Environmental Solid Waste & Recycling. Now here’s an important sector these days, and these folks, like so many good trade, usually set the agenda for the daily press and broadcasters.

OHS Canada Magazine. Ditto to the above two titles.

Salon, largely on the strength of its consistently wonderful art direction.

But, as I’ve said, I can’t say any one of the 18 titles I've mentioned here so far is any more influential than another beyond their immediate audiences.

If you can have only one trade mag on the influence list –and I think there should be at least one– you probably can’t go wrong with Canadian Grocer. It wasn’t necessarily the first or best Canadian b-to-b magazine in history, but it was the first one John B. Maclean started in 1887, when he was a 24 year old newspaper reporter at the Toronto Mail, and one that became the keystone to his publishing empire, which dominated the trade and later consumer industry until it was swallowed by Rogers in 1994 (and really continues, under its new identity and name, to be the Canadian magazine industry’s 900 pound gorilla).

It helps that the grocery industry is an evergreen sector (no matter how poor economic conditions might get, people still gotta eat, right) that remains largely domestically controlled. (As an aside, it was always somewhat amusing and bemusing to me at Marketing magazine that while branded packaged goods companies, generally near the top of the food chain in our reader universe, were among the toughest to get any kind of consistent comment from by our staff, these companies would bend over backwards to speak to Grocer. In Grocer’s world, after all, they are the suppliers not the big fish.)

But the magazine in and of itself has remained relevant, and very profitable, over the decades. Its editors and publishers have always done their best to get close to their readers, find out what they need and want, and deliver it.

Two little anecdotes relating to Grocer from Maclean Hunter at One Hundred, a special perfect-bound magazine issued to all company staff by MH during the company’s 1987 centennial.

First, it describes B.T. (Burt) Huston –who stepped down as Grocer editor in 1954 after 46 years with MH– as a “classic editor” in terms of service to and leadership in his field. “His stature was so much that 200 leaders of the food industry gathered from across the country to honour him at a testimonial dinner in 1949. At the time no other business-press editor in Canada had ever received such a distinction.”

Second, it quotes George Condon, the Grocer publisher/editor in 1987 (and for several decades... and like Huston, an eventual inductee into The Food Industry Association of Canada’s hall of fame), as saying: “I see myself about 95% in the food industry and 5% in the publishing industry.” And that view of being “of” the industry you serve rather than apart from it is one Condon said was shared by J. B. Maclean. “There was no question that he was totally devoted to the grocery industry when he launched Canadian Grocer. He already had a reputation of being a commodities expert in North America.”

That degree of passion about and immersion in the industry one covers is always a telling attitude in a B-to-B editor. Sideline observers and clock-watching hacks are seldom influential players in the trade space. Those who are passionate and dig in can be. And that usually seperates the good magazine from the influential magazine.


Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 9:37 PM EST
Updated: Tuesday, 4 December 2007 10:30 PM EST
Friday, 30 November 2007
Big news broadcasters online: glass half full or half empty
Topic: Media
One of the final segments of the nextMedia: Monetizing Digital Media conference this week was a fairly freewheeling panel addressing what mainstream broadcasters are doing to push their news content through online channels and how they are adapting to he challenges of consumer generated content and so called “citizen journalism.”

Taking part were, Mark Lukasiewicz, vice president NBC News, Digital Media, Jonathan Dube, director of digital programming, CBC News, and Leonard Brody, CEO, Now Public, one of those online citizen news sources that moderator Mathew Ingram, The Globe & Mail tech writer, noted are giving the other two such a hard time these days.

This video clip highlights how major Canadian broadcasters are “adapting” versus their U.S. counterparts.

Depending on who’s talking, there’s been great progress, or “embarrassing short sighed-ness.”



Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 8:27 AM EST
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Branded content on the march
Topic: Online marketing

David Carson, the co-CEO of New York-based banded content producer Heavy.com, gave a funny but smart presentation to open day two of the nextMEDIA: Monetizing Digital Media conference in Toronto yesterday morning.

He started out reminding us that the Internet is “nothing”... just electrical currents in the air. It actually “weighs less than 2 oz,” he said, and claimed to have the science to back that up  (which given heavey.com’s mostly comedy-based content, I wouldn’t bet the farm on it being true… but the point still stands).

Carson argued most agencies and media companies (and their clients) are missing the boat in continuing to think of this “nothing” in terms of “real estate” with banners, super banners and “box thingys.” This focus on real estate just puts you in a ghetto, he said, and the goal should be to escape a ghetto, right? Better to look to be innovative and break the rules with things like branded content–which of course happily a heavy.com can help you with.

Actually, most of the examples of “innovative branded content” Carson showed didn’t appear to be heavy programs (except the viral Burger King Halloween mask stuff). And the one that struck home best for me was the Extreme Blending program for Blendtec.

As Carson rightly noted, blenders are hardly sexy high involvement products ripe for viral web video creations. Yet Blendtec pulled it off with www.willitblend.com, a site that invited visitors to propose things to blend and then carried videos of a white lab coated guy demo-ing the product blending the suggestions. And for some reason, Carson noted dryly, people didn’t ask to have a banana and yogurt blended into a smoothie. They went for the weird stuff. Like an iPod.

Yes it blends.

An inspiration for all marketers of conventional low involvement products, I say.

Later in the morning, Daniel Tibbs, VP and Studio chief of GoTV Networks showed off some of the content his California-based company has created for P&G, to run both on their web sites and on cell phones. Talk about the return to the days of the radio and TV soaps, when P&G created the program content in order to speak to its customers.

One of them, Crecsent Heights, aims to promote Tide to twentysomethings with three-minute episodes following the good clean fun of four kids in an apartment complex trying to make it in big city L.A. As Tibbs explained it, the building’s one common area –the laundry room- is where the four main character’s sometimes interact –and the product gets handled- but in many episodes Tide never even makes an appearance (other than the sponsor logo at the end).

The kids are gorgeous, the production values high and slick, the plot squeaky clean and insipid and the sell surprisingly soft and subtle.

If this is the future of branded entertainment, I’ll stick with extreme blending. But then, this isn’t ultimately about entertainment, its about branding and moving soap. And given how lame much of popular mass entertainment is, and always has been, it would be foolish to under-estimate the potential of Crecsent Heights. Will be interesting to see numbers when they come in.


Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 7:35 AM EST
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
The greatest Canadian magazines 2: Old school edition
Topic: Media

More on the Masthead 20 most influential Canadian magazines of all time exercise I posted on a few days ago.

One of the big challenges with a list like this is that it tends to be dominated by the living memory of the current generation. It usually ends up being the top players from mostly last 20 or 30 years, maybe 40. Which is fine because these thing are really about the collective memory of us now, not a true history.

Still the completest in me wanted to take a look further back for candidate magazines that I either dimly remember, have forgotten about or never even knew about.  To do this I’ve returned to my J-school notes and texts-most notably Paul Rutherford’s 1978 history The Making of Canadian Media. I’ve also scanned and the Canadian Encyclopedia online (whose entries on magazines appear to date from 1986, happily the year I entered the industry), and revisited sections of Selling Themselves: The Emergence of Canadian Advertising,
Russell Johnston’s excellent 2000 book looking at the rise of modern marketing advertising here, and the mass media industries with it, from about 1890 to the early 1930s.

Some cool stories here, although just how influential they all were is an open question.

• The Nova Scotia Magazine: Don’t know much about it, or how influential really, but I do know it is credited as the first Canadian magazine. This from the Canadian Encyclopedia: “The first Canadian magazine, edited by the Rev William Cochran and printed by John Howe, father of reformer Joseph HOWE, was The Nova Scotia Magazine and Comprehensive Review of Literature, Politics, and News. It commenced publication in 1789, lasted 3 years, and was concerned more with British than colonial affairs.”

Le Magasin de Québec: Also on this topic of first Canadian magazines, the CE states: “The bilingual Le Magasin de Québec was established by Samuel Neilson in Lower Canada's capital and published from 1792 to 1794. It marked the first attempt at drawing the 2 cultures together through a printed medium.”

Also in CE under the topic of French Magazines:
“Early magazines aimed not simply to inform their readers but to instruct them and entertain them. This vision guided Samuel Neilson when he launched The Quebec Magazine/Le magasin de Québec (1792-94), a 64-page bilingual monthly, containing excerpts from European and American publications, and illustrated by what may have been the first engravings ever published in a magazine.”

Semeur canadien: The small magazine of ideas challenging a conservative establishment in Quebec didn’t start with Cite Libre. This title took on the Catholic church in mid-19th century Quebec, a foe that makes Duplessis look like a pussycat.

Says the Canadian Encyclopedia: “At this time [mid-1800s] magazines began a battle which was to prove decisive for their future, against the Roman Catholic Church, all-powerful in Québec in the 19th century. One of the first major conflicts occurred in 1851 when Narcisse Cyr revealed abuses committed by church officials in Semeur canadien, a magazine declared to be heretical and dangerous, whose readers were threatened with excommunication by the archbishop of Montréal. The battle escalated in 1864 when Pope Pius IX published his Syllabus, banning certain books. Monseigneur Ignace BOURGET then threw himself into a crusade aimed at preventing the appearance of any new publications in Québec. The Index included about 20 000 titles and more than 8000 authors, causing the eventual disappearance of a number of publications, including Le Canada (1889-1909), which had denounced the Catholic school system and abuses of authority committed by the church. It quickly found its place in The Index and sales plummeted from more than $350 a month to a bare $25 in Dec 1893.”


Whew. The Golden Compas is getting off easy.

Canadian Illustrated News: Founded by the great grandfather of my J-school dean Peter Deberats –as he told us many, many times-, this Montreal-based title is considered a world pioneer in the use of photoengraving.

The Canadian Encyclopedia: “The technique of photoengraving was pioneered in Canada and used first in the immensely successful Canadian Illustrated News, which began operations in 1869 and gained a large following principally because of its vivid portrayal of scenery and its stirring images of the NORTH-WEST REBELLION. Its French counterpart was the technically more accomplished, but generally less commercially successful, L'Opinion publique illustré.”

Prairie Farmer or Family Herald or both as a joint entry:
In our largely urban modern Canada, we can’t conceive of the size or clout of the farm community in this country before 1950. Or the farm publishing sector. From about 1890s to the 1930s there was an entire genre of agriculture publishing that rivaled the trade and still nascient consumer magazine segments in size and scope. There were lots of specialized titles, but the biggest were a mix of lifestyle and business, which matched the reality of farm life. In 1921, seven of the top 10 Canadian magazines tiles by circulation were farm related (this from a chart in Russell Johnston’s Selling Themselves, based on from compiled in Lydiatt’s book [Lydiatt was by then the owner of Marketing]).

Prairie Farmer, a weekly owned by the Winnipeg Free Press, was one of the best know. It was kind of a version of Maclean’s combined with trade mag for the western farm set, had a circulation of almost 150,000 in the 1920s. It’s eastern counterpart, the Family Herald, owned by the Montreal Star, boasted an even larger circulation of 217,000 in the same era. These publications, in the words of Paul Rutherford (p.46), featured “an impressive compilation of short reports on farm affairs, a news summary, and assorted delights for a family audience.”
 
Canadian: The early 20th century version, of which I knew next to nothing until seeing several references to it in Russell Johnston’s Selling Themselves (from which almost all of the following is culled).

Apparently Canadian was an attempt to emulate Harper’s “belle letters” highbrow mag model developed in 1860s south of the border. It was founded in 1893 by Ontario Publishing company, a Toronto book publisher, and was considered a “modest success” until the 1930s. While it never cracked the top 50 in circulation in Canada, it had a loyal elite readership. It peaked in 1919 with a 17,250 monthly circ. A 1924 redesign, which attempted to make it more like the rising “consumer” titles never quite took, and in fact appears to have only ailienated its core readers and hastened its demise.

Canadian Courier: Again, this is drawn from Russell Johnston who describes Canadian Courier an outright copy of the more street-wise populist U.S. general interest “consumer” magazines like Munsey’s, McClure’s, the Saturday Evening Post etc. flooding into Canada after 1890. It was launched in 1906 by former Canadian editor John A Cooper and by 1919 boasted a 45,000 circulation every two weeks.

Courier was reputedly much more ad friendly than most Canadian titles of the era. Aside from quality paper, larger format and lots of illustration and colour, Courier also adopted the then radical model from the U.S. of actually integrating ads and editorial onto the same page, often in editorial departments that paralleled emerging consumer markets. In 1917, the editor even ran a list of national advertisers and recommended readers patronize them. It was also one of the first Canadian magazines to adopt a flow plan of having open pages up front with turns to the back, stacked with partial ads, that lead readers through the entire book.

Canadian Courier’s arrival may well mark the moment in the magazine business here when the shift from the 19th century almost exclusive focus on readers to a greater attention (although, note, not total attention) to advertiser needs and wants began. It’s a model that’s basically been a given in the business for a century now.

Courier would eventually lose ground in the 1920s to an another magazine that slavishly borrowed American formulas and Canadianized them, Maclean’s.

Everywoman’s World: Russell Johnston suggests this was probably Canada’s first true “women’s consumer” magazine as we’ve come to know them.

Everywoman’s World was founded in 1913 by Continental Publishing Company. It was the brainchild of Isidor Simonski, who he’d analyzed the results of a campaign to sell a floured essence cooking product to women through existing general interest “consumer” magazines found that no magazine could deliver women exclusively-in fact only boast more than a 50% female readership. So, he figured why not create one that spoke only to women.

It was an almost instant hit. By 1921, Everywoman’s World had the highest per issue circulation of any Canadan magazine with 106,167 (and was apparently the first Canadian title to breach the 100,000 threshold).

La Revue populaire and/or La Revue moderne: From the Canadian Encyclopedia: “Growing urban concentration and more widespread education meant that traditional magazines no longer met the needs of their readers, who were increasingly drawn from the masses. These readers wanted popularization, variety and light entertainment, as found in American and French magazines. And so La Revue populaire was born (1907-63), whose circulation rose in less than 50 years from 5000 to more than 125 000. Aimed at the whole family, it published short stories, a family column, various pieces of information and, during WWI, news from the Front. But the postwar period was fatal both for it and the austere Canada français (1918-46): faced with ever more competitors, magazines fought for survival by attracting readers with a tempting layout, winning advertisers and, above all, by specializing. La Revue populaire tried to attract a female readership, but they remained faithful to La Revue moderne (1918-1960), one of the first magazines to be run by a woman (Madeleine Huguenin). Very visual, and financed as much by advertising as by sales, this magazine caught the attention of Maclean Hunter Ltd. In October 1960, La Revue moderne merged with a French version of CHATELAINE. Five months later, Châtelaine printed 125 000 copies; the age of modern magazines had definitely come to French Canada.”

Weekend Magazine (or maybe Canadian or Canadian Weekend): I dimly remember this title from my toddler days, and moreso when it was merged with its rival as Canadian Weekend in the 70s and 80s (an era in which I recall some Roy MacGregor bylines on hockey stories). But in their mid 20th century heyday (say 1925-1965), the rotogravure weekend supplements distributed in major daily newspapers were the country’s mostly widely read magazines. According to the Canadian Encyclopedia, the combined 2.9 million circulation of Weekend Magazine and rival Star Weekly in 1952 topped the combined circ. of the four leading stand alone magazines (presumably Time, Reader’s Digest, Maclean’s and Chatelaine) by 300,000.

Star Weekly
, owned, of course, by the Toronto Star and dating from the teens, developed a huge advantage in the late 1940s when the King government banned the import of U.S. pulp magazines and comic books, but left exempt comics distributed with newspapers. Star Weekly was left as exclusive distributor of some of the most popular U.S. comics (call it the forerunner of the Canwest/CTV business model of getting government protection for your infrastructure, but filling it with popular American content and a smidgen of Cancon).

In reaction, the Montreal Star and Montreal Standard newspapers merged their weekend magazines, both also founded at the beginning of the 20th century, into Weekend Magazine in 1951. By the early 1960s Weekend was “the most popular advertising vehicle in the nation” a circulation over 2 million through its carriage in 41 newspapers. As Jack Granatstein’s Canadian Encylcopedia entry puts it, Weekend “offered high-quality colour reproduction to advertisers, good photographs, feature stories and recipes to readers, and a profit-making supplement that boosted circulation for the newspaper publishers.”  A market like that abhors a vacum. So in 1966, the Star combined with the Southam chain to create The Canadian, which resulted in a decade-plus long competition that saw some of the country’s best writers and editors producing excellent magazine journalism.

But both titles were soon fighting a loosing battle. The rise of colour TV in the 60s lead to the diminishing clout of the rotogravures (and of all general interest titles). Weekend merged with Canadian in 1979, morphed into Today in 1980 and then shut down in 1982.

(BTW, in the U.S., Parade magazine is the leading surviving rotogravure. Distributed in 400 newspapers, Parade currently claims to be the country’s most widely read magazine with a circulation of 32 million and a readership of 71 million.)


Homemakers: It’s not that long ago, but Homemakers was ground breaking in the 1960s and 1970s for its controlled circulation model –now the dominant form for most trade titles- also applied to brother title Quest magazine. This from the Canadian Enclyclopedia, again circa 1986: The term "general-interest magazine" has little relevance in the contemporary market. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the increasing prominence of controlled-circulation magazines. The largest publisher of such magazines is COMAC, which was founded in 1966 and has 8 magazines including Homemaker's / Madame à foyer, Quest (which folded in late 1984) and Western Living. In late 1983 a rival company launched the largest circulation Canadian magazine, Recipes Only, which has a controlled circulation of 2 million readers and is a prime example of the current trend toward publishing for a narrow and specific market. All these magazines endorse doctrines of affluence and have a clear middle- and upper-middle-class consumer bias. They reflect a glistening internationalism rather than a parochial nationalism and, in that sense, are a mirror of contemporary Canadian middle-class aspirations.”

Those last two sentences sums up the big trends in the industry, and culture, for the last 30 years I’d say, perhaps sadly.

And one last pitch from the misty past:

The Eye Opener: I’ve heard myths about this title, and I’m sure it never had the kind of influence Masthead is looking to celebrate.  Or maybe it does. Either way, Bob Edward’s Calgary Eye Opener, which published apparently rather intermittently from 1902 to 1922, sounds like a lot of fun, and just as dangerous as say Frank.

This from Rutherford (p. 44):  “…This great ‘moral weekly’ was the satirical voice of an unregenerate lowbrow. Bob Edwards was a Scottish-born adventurer who, after assorted travel, settled down to a life of intermittent alcoholism and journalism in Alberta. His eight-page weekly appeared irregularly, depending on his sobriety, sold for five cents on the streets, and eventually on the train of the Canadian Pacific Railway. By 1911, the Eye Opener enjoyed a circulation of some 26,000 copies in Calgary and throughout the prairies, its fame reaching into Great Britain and the United States. What so charmed readers was the Eye Opener’s compilation of news, gossip, scandal, speculation, fantasy, wit, homilies and fun–all enthused with a love of the ordinary person. Edwards used his weekly to survey the low life of the horse races, prize fights, drinking spots, and the like; to ridicule the pretentions of high society, the ‘holier-than-thou’ attitudes of moralists, the greed of big business, the stupidity and corruption of politicians; to champion women’s rights, minimum wage laws, even briefly prohibition. ..The Eye Opener had no particular impact, even if its satire irritated the high and mighty (once, Lord Strathcona of CPR fame, almost sued for libel [as did Alberta premier A.L. Sifton]). The point is the weekly’s very existence spoke well of a Canada already too notorious for its straight-laced morality and pomposity.”


The Canadian Encylcopedia also has a short funny entry on Edwards.

Variations on the Eye Opener have been recreated over the decades (the CBC Calgary’s morning drive show has adapted the moniker, as has a Ryerson U student paper, amoung others).


Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 6:10 PM EST
Updated: Thursday, 29 November 2007 7:45 AM EST
Following the digital money
Topic: Online marketing
The undisputed hit session of day one of the nextMedia conference yesterday had to be the morning panel “Monitizing online and mobile media” featuring Kurt David Kratchman, chief strategy officer of Schmatic (and once, long ago, one of the founders of Blast Radius), Jeff Stier, senior partner, director of business growth, North America for J. Walter Thompson and John Hadl, CEO of the Brand in Hand consultancy and creator of the Procter & Gamble Ad Lab.

All there were quick and frank with their points, and moderator Robert Montgomery, CEO of Achilles Media (the event’s producers), kept them all on track by bringing them back again and again to the questions of ‘yeah, but did it work, how did you monetize that?’

The exchange I like best was Kratchman’s declaration that the subscription model for making money online is “dead,” which he quickly downgraded when pressed by Montgomery to subscription revenue streams will “peak this year” while ad driven models linked to “free” content will accelerate and leave subscription in the dust in coming years.

A little bit later Hadl revved up and said the debate over “ad revenue vs. subscription revenue” as the right business model for online content is moot. “It’s going to be both,” he said. “Look at TV.” You buy a TV and then you watch free over-the-air channels and you also pay for the specialty channels you want.  At the end of the day advertisers will use what helps them move product and build awareness.

He added sardonically that there is probably more investment cap money chasing digital start ups than there are ad dollars looking to use those start ups right now, but long term the prospects for online as a robust ad channel are very good.

You can see some of Hadl’s comments in this video clip taken with my trusty MacBook (okay, its not quite ready for prime time video, but you gotta experiment with these things right).

Stier’s story about why JWT set up its Sector 7 division to retain intellectual property right for some of its ideas was also a telling glimpse of the shifting landscape out there.

He showed a great video of a Cannes winning campaign for Dominos Pizza that saw the creation of 4 online characters, 17 commercials and an eBay driven Internet program that generated 4.5 million page views, tons of press and, oh yeah, sold a ot of pizzas-all for the cost of les than the typical media buy for a typical Dominos TV spot. And the agency got fired seven months after it ran.

On that same vein, Hadl added the story of Jawbone, a new phone product that an agency agreed to take a royalty of a buck a until sold instead of a fee for its work. The product has so far moved 13 million devices, which is a nice payout for what normally would have netted the agency a $250,000 fee.

I also liked Hadl’s comment that the very first, and still best, social media was created more than a 130 years ago: it’s called the telephone, and it really revolutionized how we reach out and communicate to our friends, families and business associates.

Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 6:03 PM EST
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
A tough crowd at nextMedia
Topic: Online marketing
Give the audience at the nextMedia: Monetizing Digital Media conference today full marks for being feisty. The event, produced by Achilles Media, was hampered by an apparent broken down boiler at the downtown Toronto venue, the Diesel Playhouse. Temperatures were actually colder inside than out until mid-afternoon. While the room was frigid, the content of the presentations was, if not steaming hot, generally pretty solid. Still is was the pointed engagement of the crowd of hundred or so that was probably most notable. Maybe it was the cold that got them edgy.

Gotta feel for Alex Gardiner of Casale Media, who after giving a fairly straight up presentation on his company’s capabilities –essentially, to be over simplistic about it, they do what Google does in terms of serving ads and paid links to a host of sites, but of course they are a lot less well known- was hit with an a fairly aggressive question along the lines of “I tried your service and it sucked, what are doing about it?” Gardner did a pretty good job of looking unflustered as he said, in essence, ‘we’re growing and our customers are happy, but no we aren’t the optimal choice for everyone.’

But the exchange I liked best came after the opening keynote from Brandon Berger, the New York-based (I assume from his accent and U.S. resume) head of digital innovation for MDC partners, titled “When creative meets digital and brand meets content.”  His presentation was okay, although its main points bore a striking resemblance to those made by Chuck Porter of the MDC-owned agency Crispin Porter Boguski at the CMA Digital Marketing conference last month , only delivered with the lower panache volume you’d expect from a holding company guy (I guess you’d hope they have a common world view).

One of Berger’s examples of great online branding was inevitably the Dove Evolution spot, which even I’m tired of hearing about -and I’m a big fan. (What is it about Americans that they don’t take into account that Torontonians may have heard and seen something about the Dove film when they make presentations up here-although give him credit, at least it wasn’t an MDC shop’s work he was highlighting.)

During the question period, Trapeze CD Mike Kasprow was quick out of the gate to complain that he was tired of Dove Evolution being held up as the future of online media. It was an “aberration” that can’t be replicated, and it helps no one to try or advise clients to try, he said. “Once the genie’s out of the bottle, you can’t do it a second time.”

Berger actually had a pretty good response, which I’d describe as being akin to one of Bob Dylan’s cryptic lines in “Subterranean Homesick Blues”: “Don’t follow leaders, watch parking meters.” Rough translation: There are no rules and roadmaps; do your own thing.

“There is no formula for viral, “ Berger said. “Dove was a shot in the dark and it worked.” The great thing about digital is you can take shots in the dark at very little cost and risk.

So, no, no one should try to ape the Dove example; but marketers and agencies should be empowered by its success to break accepted rules and models in other ways.


Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 7:39 PM EST
Monday, 26 November 2007
The greatest Canadian magazines
Topic: Media

I’ve been asked by Masthead magazine, Canada’s trade magazine for the magazine industry, to be part of a jury selecting the top 20 most influential Canadian magazines in history…and putting them in rank order. It’s very flattering to be asked…and daunting.

I’m told part of the reason I’ve been invited onto the jury is I’ll likely have a bit more background and insight on trade magazines. We’ll see about that. I’d say its even more daunting to consider which trades might crack this list, but more on that in another post.

You can see all of the comments and nominations at the Masthead discussion board. As Fraser Sutherland noted in a post there, this is a particularly challenging exercise because whereas in the U.S. where there are slew of major magazines that are remembered as having achieved undisputed icon status –he noted Time, Life and Fortune, and I’d add Sport Illustrated, Harper’s, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone to name just a few- we just don’t have that many magazine icons. And frankly, we don’t have the national culture –except maybe in books and music- that even encourages the creation and lauding of giants of that ilk.

Still, it’s a fun and worthy exercise. Part of the reason the Amercians have so many icons, in so many spheres of life, is they do a lot more of this kind of thing.

 
If you forced me right now, here’s what I’d say absolutely needs to be on the Masthead list:

Chatelaine: Especially for its pioneering feminism of the 1950s and 60s (ahead of the more internationally “famous” U.S. women’s magazines in this regard)… but also frankly for its continued business success (still the biggest ad dollar earner in the industry I believe) and its continued mass impact. No, it hasn’t had the same clout and power in the last couple of decades it once did –but name me a magazine that really does in the Web era-, and it seems to be taking its lead more from competitor Canadian Living’s recipe heavy formula in recent years-but its still got a ton of clout.

Maclean’s: I’d argue, as many have, that under editor/publisher Ken Whyte Maclean’s is the most consistently interesting and provocative read in mainstream Canadian magazines right now. Is it making any money? Well, that’s been the question for almost four decades now, hasn’t it? And yet not a generation can be named when Maclean’s wasn’t the home to some of each era’s most famous and successful writers and journalists… (even the so-called darkest years of the 1980s had Fotheringham and Amiel, right). And it is the flagship of what was, and probably still is, the most important Canadian magazine publisher for at least the last 70 years.

Time Canada: A controversial choice, maybe. But really Time’s “Canadian edition” and the symbolism, politics and policies surrounding it (the 1976 Bill C-58 that killed it, the WTO rulings in the 90s that unraveled those laws, and so much more before and after that we’d all like to forget) have probably had a bigger impact on the shape of the Canadian magazine industry than any other single title or company (okay, maybe the old MH, did have more clout). And it did publish weekly with some real Canadian content from 1943 to the mid 70s, landing in hundreds of thousands of Canadian homes each week. I remember reading it at my grandparents. Maybe this could be a joint entry with Reader’s Digest, which had the same grandfathered “Canadian status” in 1965 and actually continued to publish Canadian content after the tax laws changed in 1976.

Toronto Life: Canada’s first and best city magazine, arguably the best and most successful (both financially and esthetically) home for “serious” literary journalism in the past three decades. And it continues to prove that service journalism doesn’t have to be completely empty headed and routine. It had long been one of the main aspirational places to work for Canadian magazine wonks when I graduated (UWO, journalism MA, 86), and I suspect its still pretty high on that list.   

Cité Libre: Never personally read it –one I don’t read French, and two it shut down when I was four (1966)-, but I’ve known about the intellectual, political and social clout of this journal since first year poly sci and history classes. Co-founded and edited by future PM Pierre Trudeau in 1950, and it carried pieces during the 50s by both future federalist and separatist leaders like Gérard Pelletier, René Lévesque and Pierre Vallières As such it was the intellectual breading ground of the Quiet revolution and just about everything that followed in Quebec politics and society in the 60s and 70s, and hence really the direction of national politics until arguably to the end of the Chretien regime just a few years ago. That’s pretty influential for a small circ. magazine that only a fraction of the country’s population ever read. A contender for the top spot perhaps.

Alberta Report: The West’s Cité Libre? Maybe an over-simplification. But Ted Byfield’ right-of-centre, Christian and family values, western alienation vehicle, and it’s many incarnations between 1973, when it began as Edmonton Report, and 2003, when son Link Byfield eventually folded The Report, had a huge influence on the Western Canadian political and social agenda. It certainly incubated the Reform and Alliance parties, which live on in Stephen Harper’s reunited governing Conservative party. And the influence of “Ted’s children” in the mainstream media business is huge today, most notably in Western Report alum Ken Whyte and Mark Stevenson’s runs since the mid-90s at Saturday Night, the launch of the National Post and now Maclean’s.

Saturday Night: Given its continuous shaky financial picture for the final 40 or so years of existence –and its “suspension” in 2005 by St. Josephs Media due to lack of ad support-, its hard to think of Saturday Night as a financial force. But according to Paul Rutherford’s 1978 survey history of mass media in this country The Making of Canadian Media, Saturday Night magazine was actually the third largest ad vehicle of all North American magazines in 1938.
From its inception in 1887, Saturday Night was always a “high brow” read. With the likes of B.K. Sandwell and Robertson Davies working there in the mid-20th century, it was a mainstream intellectual force. But I’d argue the golden age(s) of Saturday Night would be its most financially uncertain-the Fulford, Fraser, Whyte eras after 1968.
Only Toronto Life arguably rivaled it as the home of the country’s best magazine writers and editors in those 30 or so years. And only the Globe and Mail and the CBC probably had more influence with the national English elites in politics, arts and even business. It was our Atlantic Monthly, New Yorker and Harper’s all in one. And even though it had a proportional readership here bigger than all three of those U.S. titles combined, it still couldn’t make a serious go of it financially.

Frank: Why the hell not, I say.

Those are the "musts," so far, on my list. More thoughts as they come.


Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 10:46 AM EST
Updated: Monday, 26 November 2007 11:12 AM EST
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Reviewing Labatt
Topic: Advertising
Some passing thoughts on the latest Labatt Breweries agency machinations.

Marketing Daily broke the story that the brewer had awarded Grip Ltd the Bud and Bud Light accounts, and essentially fired its other four agencies late last week (and the Globe and Mail followed up –finally- yesterday with a piece saying, with a few nuances, the same thing). Meanwhile, it has bundled its “lesser” brands into one assignment and invited some, although apparently not all, of the incumbents and some other agencies to pitch for the business.


Out big time is Downtown Partners, the DDB Canada satellite shop that had handled the Bud brands for the past seven years and also Keith’s for much for that time. It apparently hasn’t been invited to the pitch, which is a huge blow as Labatt represented 35% to 40% of the 35-person agency’s business. There’s serious talk that the shop will close or be folded into DDB Toronto, which has people seeing parallels to the last time Labatt made similar –some would argue unfair- agency moves. Back in late 2001 it awarded most of its work to the start up superstar creative shop Grip –staffed by the cream of the creative departments of most of the then Labatt roster shops–, which kick started the death spiral of its then lead shop Ammirati Puris. (For a blast from the past you can read my obit for Ammirati from 2002 here.)

First, the comparisons to 2001 are exaggerated. After all Labatt hasn’t hypocritically denounced the entire ad agency business model this time as justification for its move (for another blast from the past, you can read my column from November '01 about that here). Although, that said it’s reported invitation –demand– that incumbent shops show up and give a 15 minute presentation as to how they still add value and thus why should be retained –apparently reduced to 10 minutes for some on the day of– demonstrates that respect and partnerships are still foreign to the vocabulary of beer execs when it comes to dealing with agency “suppliers.” (That too isn’t exactly new. As Gary Prouk put it to me in an e-mail the other day, and to others: “working for Labatt was like doing hard time in the slammer with an insatiable giant cellmate called Bubba.” If that sounds bitter, he has every right. Gary led an agency, Scali McCable Sloves, Toronto, that got sideswiped not once but twice by Labatt’s agency schizophrenia, the last time in 1994 when Labatt gave almost all of its work to the then tiny and virtually unknown Toronto branch office of New York’s Ammirati.)

It’s notable that what didn’t happen this time is the lead Labatt agency didn’t get sacked. In fact, the shift is a ringing endorsement of Grip, a shop that many predicted would implode within a few years if not months of its founding. It’s six years going on seven folks, and Grip is still hanging in there as lead shop on the Labatt flagship brand. This counts as significant stability in the beer ad game. Ammiratti got a whole eight years with Blue, and Scali half that (let’s not go into JWT, which held the Blue brand business for decades before the still legendary 1985 review –won by Scali- that some suggest was the start of beer marketing madness in this country).

What’s changed here is that Labatt has finally acknowledged the sad reality that, after nearly 40 years –and two decades of slow decline- , Blue is no longer its flagship brand. The brewed here CanAm versions of Bud are now its flagships. So the hotshots at Grip now have the most important job for Labatt again. And in a sense, Labatt has gone back to its past with this move. After all several of the original key creatives on the Bud Light Institute, including David Chiavegato and partner Rich Pryce-Jones, are still Grip partners.

Once again, although not as badly as in 2001 when it lost its president to Grip, Roche takes an unfair collateral hit by these changes. The agency’s work for Stella Artois has done gangbusters at global and domestic ad shows this year, and more importantly the brand share has grown steadily here. Yes, they’ve been invited to the pitch, but judging by his comment Geoff Roche doesn’t think they have much of a shot.

As for Downtown, it does all seem so unfair. It was –is- a very good shop that did a lot of great work for Labatt and other clients. And it was the client, after all, that opted to shelve the popular Bud Light Institute campaign in 2005 and directed the agency to ape the successful (though less fun and intelligent) Coors Light creative model. Canadian beer advertising, not just Bud’s, hasn’t really had a spark since.

But the agency also knew it was overly dependent on the whims of Labatt management. It knew it had to diversify its client base, but never quite managed the task. I remember sitting on the Ritz terrace in Cannes with Tony Altillia, probably in 2003, talking about how as clients were becoming more demanding and fickle a lot of very good agencies, including the one he was running, were only just an account loss or two away from oblivion. We’d got on the subject in a there-but-by-the grace-of-god conversation about Ammirati actually. In light of events this month, Tony’s somewhat surprising early retirement from the Downtown CEO’s job in September takes on a new hue. Not that I have any evidence he knew what was about to come down, but I’m sure as the consummate account guy he is Tony could tell which way the wind was blowing.

Two final related streams of thought.

I’ve done a lot of referring to “historical” events here in talking about current events. I realized as I was typing that I felt nostalgia for a time when the beer business, and beer marketing, mattered more in this country. I think no one would disagree that the stakes just aren’t as high in the beer game as they used to be. And certainly it doesn’t seem to be any where near as much fun. I’m guessing part of that, though not all of it, is due to the fact that big two brewers are now effectively controlled off shore. I guess the next question is when will Molson give up on Canadian as its English market flagship brand too.

The other thought is just how little buzz there is about this in the media. Marketing Daily played it big, but seven or eight years ago both national business papers would have been all over this story–probably first–with multiple days of coverage. The Globe took a couple of days to get on it, and the Financial Post to my knowledge hasn’t covered it yet (nor surprisingly has Strategy’s Media In Canada). That may say more about the daily business press’s resource issues, but it also may also say something about the decline in importance of marketing and advertising-and not just for beer-in the business mix.

Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 8:45 AM EST
Updated: Tuesday, 27 November 2007 7:46 PM EST

Newer | Latest | Older