These are real bugbears of mine. Above the Line and Below the Line are distinctions that are now effectively meaningless - or worse, unclear.
'Above the line' traditionally meant TV, Newspaper ads, Outdoor posters, Cinema, Radio. It apparently stemmed from the way Procter and Gamble were sold media in the 50's and 60's. Ad agencies were making so much from the sale of media in these channels, the production and creation of ideas were free - above the line. Everything else (Direct Mail) - where they charged for creative - wasn't. That's Wikipedia's answer, but it's not sourced. Anyone about with a different answer?
This is now manifestly not the case and hasn't been for bloody ages.
'Above the line' is usually now usually used (in my experience) to mean anything mass media, non person specific. 'Below the line' is usually used to mean communications delivered to a specific person - Direct mail, Email etc.
Using this separation: 'Above the Line and Below the line' is pointless and unclear. It's a hang over from old school media planning. It shouldn't reflect how media is planned, and it certainly shouldn't effect how we think about delivering ideas. The distinction is probably now more like a scale of personalization. From 'non personalised' to 'personal', though those words need work!
Thoughts, violent agreements/disagreements welcome.
Wednesday 22 September 2010
WeAreNotConsumers
Hello.
I work in marketing. Like every other business, people in marketing talk about how much everything has changed, how the old models no longer apply. Every few weeks there's a new revolutionary theory, a new book released, a new 'idea'. There's lots of talk about change, evolution, revolution. New agencies launch with 'new' ways of doing things.
But we still use the same language. People are still described en masse as 'consumers'. People still talk about 'above the line' and 'below the line', concepts that were meaningless to begin with (apparently literally stemming from their position on the media plan - other answers welcome). I started in an 'ATL' agency, we're now 'integrated', whatever that really means. Sounds vaguely painful.
This blog is about re-defining the language of marketing, because language shapes thinking. If we don't break free of old language and definitions, we'll still think the same way. It's intended to be an on going argument. I will be wrong all the time, and so will everybody else. Sometimes we might come to something we agree on.
Tom
I work in marketing. Like every other business, people in marketing talk about how much everything has changed, how the old models no longer apply. Every few weeks there's a new revolutionary theory, a new book released, a new 'idea'. There's lots of talk about change, evolution, revolution. New agencies launch with 'new' ways of doing things.
But we still use the same language. People are still described en masse as 'consumers'. People still talk about 'above the line' and 'below the line', concepts that were meaningless to begin with (apparently literally stemming from their position on the media plan - other answers welcome). I started in an 'ATL' agency, we're now 'integrated', whatever that really means. Sounds vaguely painful.
This blog is about re-defining the language of marketing, because language shapes thinking. If we don't break free of old language and definitions, we'll still think the same way. It's intended to be an on going argument. I will be wrong all the time, and so will everybody else. Sometimes we might come to something we agree on.
Tom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)