Reading Assignment 2: “The Future of Advertising is Now”
This special report from strategy+business magazine published by the consulting firm Booz Allen, tells marketers they are doomed to fail if they do not understand and use the unique capabilities of the Internet to reach consumers. What do you think?
February 17th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
I think the authors of this report are definitely right when it comes to the explosion in multiplatform and online advertising. One unique strength of the Internet they mentioned is that companies can get much faster results and feedback from online ads than from traditional TV ads. Instead of having to wait for the weekly Nielsen or Arbitron ratings (which can’t always be trusted), they can quickly find out how many hits they’ve gotten on their Web site and see exactly which pages people have visited (just like we do with Google Analytics).
As powerful as digital advertising is, it also has flaws and creeps me out a little bit. When I lived in a small rural town in upstate New York, I could see ads for stores across the street from me on stations based in bigger cities - Albany, Binghamton and Utica. (My guess is that these were done through Visible World or a similar program.)
But I also saw a ton of ads for chain stores and restaurants that my town lacked. Instead of making me want to drive hours to shop at Target, the ads just made me resentful.
Then again, that could just be a limitation of the television medium. And this might be a greater problem with cable, where a nationwide network based in one state advertises businesses that only exist in that state or region of the country.
The creepy part of digital advertising is just how much it knows about me.
A TV station may not know I don’t live anywhere near a Target, but Google knows which Web sites I visit — and tries to sell me stuff based on it. That just feels weird.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Commercials and print ads really don’t grab people the way they used to. Maybe one exception to this thought is the Super Bowl. While some of us watch it for the game, there are people who tune in just for the commercials. But, for the rest of the year, this isn’t the case. With this in mind, I’d agree that it is imperative that marketing companies begin to embrace digital media.
The television networks are jumping on this bandwagon by putting some of their TV shows online for viewing. I know that ABC only puts episodes of its shows online a day after they have aired on TV. I’d assume other networks are following the same protocol. Thus, networks aren’t losing any viewers to the Internet while the show is airing.
The beauty of having shows online was best summed up by producer Mark Burnett’s quote in the paper: “To me, the new prime time is 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., because more people have access to a computer then.” That fact is exactly why I take advantage of watching some of my TV shows online. My long hours at the downtown newsroom prevent me from catching Grey’s Anatomy – when it returns to TV now that the writer’s strike is ending – at its normal airing. I just hop online and watch the episode when I have the time. As a consumer, I think what ABC and other networks have done in providing shows online has made me more likely to watch the show. I no longer have to fret with my disobedient VCR and worry if my show actually recorded. There’s no more missing episodes for me, as I can watch online whenever I like. Way to go, ABC.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:49 am
I think Dean Lavine would be proud to know that our class had to read this article.
I certainly have no problem agreeing that companies need to change their strategies for using the Internet. I understand that the online ad revenue the media companies generate will help to pay us when we go out and get jobs. Call me old-fashioned, but I do not understand why the information presented in this special report is useful to us in our journalism jobs, except to understand what the marketing people outside of the newsroom are working on.
I agree with Christina that ABC seems to have one of the best grasps of how to use the Internet to the network’s advantage. Unlike the other networks, ABC posts all of the episodes for its most popular shows less than 24 hours after the show originally airs. It also has devised a pretty intelligent plan for those pesky ads that interrupt the streaming video: Whereas the other networks have advertisement videos that last 30 seconds and then directly return to the tv show, ABC delays the video so that, although you only have to take a 30-second break before clicking a “Continue with the show”-type button, the advertisement video will not be finished after 30 seconds, enticing people to spend more than 30 seconds looking at the ad. Pretty smart.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:46 am
I found Catherine’s comments on the instant gratification offered by the Internet very interesting and completely true. I also think that Internet advertising offers so many chances to specialize in niches that other mediums can’t. As Catherine pointed out, Internet search engines can record the sites you visit and provide ads that market to your interests. Also people reading about diabetes or other illnesses are most likely interested in drugs and medical equipment that are used to treat their condition. It is great way to narrow your advertising to target a specific group.
I also found Christina’s point about TV and print ads very true. So many people have TIVO or multi-task as they watch TV these days that they don’t even pay attention to ads. Putting them online can force people to take a closer look. It also can provide interaction with the audience that TV and print ads can’t. Examples of this can be seen in ads that ask questions such as “Who is the president of the U.S.? Answer correctly and win a prize” that is of course after you subscribe to a billion things, right?
I believe it is essential for advertisers to understand the Internet to reach future generations. It really is a huge part of life in this day and age. Any advertiser who misses this great opportunity to reach potential buyers is an idiot. While, TV and print media may always be there, there is no denying that the Internet offers such great opportunities to reach the public. So I, therefore, agree with the author’s argument on the necessity to understand the Internet for the future of advertising.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:52 am
The Internet—Whoa! There I said it. We were all thinking it but I just said it. Right dude?
So much of this stuff that we read on the internet (and I am by no means pulling this class to be different than any other) is just kinda like obvious. Of course, advertising is reaching out to multimedia platforms because viewers are doing the same. And of course viewers are doing the same because it is a crossbred of novel and convenient.
Despite my semi-jaded tone there were aspects of this that I agreed with such as when the authors wrote, “Major media companies, in turn, recognize the need to pump up the volume on advertising innovation or be left behind by the consumer. They are scaling up once-tentative experiments in consumer-created content, social networking, and interactive media for their clients.”
Ok, first I have to point out that these writers legitimately used the phrase “pump up the volume.” Despite this I think they are right that advertisers need to designate ways to be more innovated but t think this means more than playing with technology.
I spent a lot of today posing for a Doritos’s commercial. It was a commercial that was made for free by my friend who won a competition but will be used in a national campaign. After a day of crunching on the chips in my costume I realized how innovative this was. We all ate tons of free Doritos. People were actually saying they had forgotten about how much they liked Doritos and the more vain of us actually twittered, texted, myspaced and facebooked about it. The ad will then appear nationally in print and on the web and Doritos didn’t pay us a single dollar. Innovative huh? I guess the real question now is why we did it?
February 18th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Oh, and Heather. The dean might not be proud but I am sure one of his anonymous sources would be.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:50 am
Why are we reading an article published for a Web site run by the “global strategy and technology consulting firm” Booz Allen Hamilton and expecting their answer to be anything but technology?
By the way, why has passivity proven to be a myth? I’m not being sarcastic now, I’m actually curious. The article says “Television, many believed, would remain forever distinct, in design, use, and location, from the computer. But passivity has proven to be a myth, and …”
I’m not even arguing with the point. I just want to know why they say that. My notion is that they say that because Booz Allen Hamilton’s 2007 annual report says the company made $4.1 billion that year consulting people, mainly on technology incorporation, but I’m a cynic.
Speaking of that annual report, here’s what that annual report has to say about the article:
“‘The Future of Advertising Is Now,’ by New York-based Booz Allen Vice Presidents Christopher Vollmer and John Frelinghuysen, and Randall Rothenberg, the firm’s former director of intellectual capiral, is a field guide for surviving new marketing channels and challenges. Based on research by Booz Allen and the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), the authors argue that the catalyst for facing the uncertain future must be a new kind of chief marketing officer with amplified skills and status - a ’super-CMO.’ The authors identify six vital ways winning marketers are learning to reconfigure their efforts. They shift spending and management attention to digital media; develop interactive formates; measure outcomes, not inputs; produce two-way, integrated campaigns; create their own branded entertainment assets; and ‘in-source’ new skills and capabilities to increase sales impact.”
So two executives and one former executive of a firm that makes its money telling people to invest in technology and strategy told us to invest in technology and strategy. I’m not saying their message might not be right. I just don’t know. I don’t trust the authors because their personal interests coincide with the points they’re making. I don’t trust the article because the research comes from A) the company they all work for, and B) the ANA, the self-proclaimed “only trade organization exclusively for client-side marketers providing indispensible business insights, extensive collaboration opportunities
February 18th, 2008 at 4:55 am
Why are we reading an article published for a Web site run by the “global strategy and technology consulting firm” Booz Allen Hamilton and expecting their answer to be anything but technology?
By the way, why has passivity proven to be a myth? I’m not being sarcastic now, I’m actually curious. The article says “Television, many believed, would remain forever distinct, in design, use, and location, from the computer. But passivity has proven to be a myth, and …”
I’m not even arguing with the point. I just want to know why they say that. My notion is that they say that because Booz Allen Hamilton’s 2007 annual report says the company made $4.1 billion that year consulting people, mainly on technology incorporation, but I’m a cynic.
Speaking of that annual report, here’s what that annual report has to say about the article:
“‘The Future of Advertising Is Now,’ by New York-based Booz Allen Vice Presidents Christopher Vollmer and John Frelinghuysen, and Randall Rothenberg, the firm’s former director of intellectual capiral, is a field guide for surviving new marketing channels and challenges. Based on research by Booz Allen and the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), the authors argue that the catalyst for facing the uncertain future must be a new kind of chief marketing officer with amplified skills and status - a ’super-CMO.’ The authors identify six vital ways winning marketers are learning to reconfigure their efforts. They shift spending and management attention to digital media; develop interactive formates; measure outcomes, not inputs; produce two-way, integrated campaigns; create their own branded entertainment assets; and ‘in-source’ new skills and capabilities to increase sales impact.”
So two executives and one former executive of a firm that makes its money telling people to invest in technology and strategy told us to invest in technology and strategy. I’m not saying their message might not be right. I just don’t know.
I don’t trust the authors because their personal interests coincide with the points they’re making.
I don’t trust the article because the research comes from A) the company they all work for, and B) the ANA, the self-proclaimed “only trade organization exclusively for client-side marketers providing indispensible business insights, extensive collaboration opportunities and [capitals mine] STRONG INDUSTRY ADVOCACY.”
Maybe they’re right. Maybe they’re wrong. But looking at the article’s backstory, I don’t trust it as an analysis of advertising. It is an advertisement.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:57 am
I have no idea why that posted twice. The time’s wrong too.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:37 am
I swear to god, if they find a way to make me watch commercials on my cell phone…
That was my first thought while I was reading this article and spotted the graphic showing mobile phone use towering above other forms of technology. I could almost hear a room full of suits salivating and saying things like, “Just LOOK at that untapped resource!”
Oh wait. They already do that. (http://www.mmaglobal.com/)
One blogger wrote on the subject, “Consumers expect everything online to be ‘free, and thus tolerate an amount of intrusiveness from advertising. On the other hand, consumers are conscious of and willing to pay for their phones’ service and the content that goes with it. An inappropriate or ill-timed advertisement could overly disgruntle a user away from either the carrier or the marketer.”
(http://www.genuinevc.com/archives/2005/08/mobile_phone_ad.htm)
He’s right. A cell phone can be, whether we like it or not, one of the more personal possessions that we own. (Insert standard communication-keeps-us-together boilerplate here). But seriously. If I were to start seeing ads on my phone screen, popping up between (or during) calls, it would feel like a complete invasion of privacy, akin to someone walking into my apartment and leaving a brochure on my coffee table. It also seems like a serious vulnerability that these desperate ad people are looking to exploit.
At one time, though, people probably felt the same way about the Internet. Like the above-quoted blogger’s stance on cell phones, we were once upon a time “conscious of and willing to pay for” Internet access “and the content that goes with it.” What happened? The Vollmers, Frelinghuysens and Rothenbergs of the world found a way to help us forget that. And it’s not like the fact that paying for content is going to somehow make us all completely intolerant toward advertising– TV and radio may provide free content (unless you get fancy with cable and XM…), but we still pay to see ads in every newspaper and magazine we buy.
It was all a natural progression, though, and as long as we have eyes and wallets there will always be an unsolicited message from Viagra there to welcome them.
And with wonderful new technology like the find-a-friend cell phone software (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gEi2RnW1AdtNIdZSMwRMGVsKCqOA ) that’s coming out (yes… it actually pinpoints your whereabouts and broadcasts them across cellular networks… nothing could possibly go wrong), just think of the possibilities. Talk about personalized content—if marketers can track where we are within a few-block radius, the notion of targeted content will take on a whole new meaning (go to Chili’s! No, seriously man, it’s like right behind you!).
February 18th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Ok, I also agree that the Internet is the new ad medium– but here’s something annoys me. You know how they say “passivity is a myth”? I may not be grasping the concept of the passive viewer in the same way that McLuhan did (But did anyone really grasp anything in the same way McLuhan did?), but in my mind it means someone who just wants to sit and be entertained.
I’d think that that was a pretty accurate statement about TV watchers. When I watch TV– if I had my way– someone else would change the channels for me. I’m that lazy. BUT, when I use the computer I feel frustrated when I don’t have control.
What am I getting at? Advertising is extremely annoying online because the Web is not a medium for the passive viewer. When I am watching a show on the oft-mentioned ABC.com, I get extremely impatient when the commerical comes on– even though the little box in the corner tells me that my programming with return in 20 seconds. Because I’m on my computer, I feel like I can change that. But I can’t. The same goes for pop-up ads that totally obscure my reading when I’m looking at the Tribune’s Web site.
So, while I agree that it’s vital to use the Internet as an ad medium– since, according to all the experts, we will all be apparently plugged into computers one day– I still think that online ads are annoying and awful. Maybe we can all get used to something that’s annoying and awful, or maybe we’ll just throw our computers out the window. The latter is unlikely.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I swear to god, if they find a way to make me watch commercials on my cell phone…
That was my first thought while I was reading this article and spotted the graphic showing mobile phone use towering above other forms of technology. I could almost hear a room full of suits salivating and saying things like, “Just LOOK at that untapped resource!”
Oh wait. They already do that.
One blogger wrote on the subject, “Consumers expect everything online to be ‘free, and thus tolerate an amount of intrusiveness from advertising. On the other hand, consumers are conscious of and willing to pay for their phones’ service and the content that goes with it. An inappropriate or ill-timed advertisement could overly disgruntle a user away from either the carrier or the marketer.”
http://www.genuinevc.com/archives/2005/08/mobile_phone_ad.htm
He’s right. A cell phone can be, whether we like it or not, one of the more personal possessions that we own. (Insert standard communication-keeps-us-together boilerplate here). But seriously. If I were to start seeing ads on my phone screen, popping up between (or during) calls, it would feel like a complete invasion of privacy, akin to someone walking into my apartment and leaving a brochure on my coffee table. It also seems like a serious vulnerability that these desperate ad people are looking to exploit.
At one time, though, people probably felt the same way about the Internet. Like the above-quoted blogger’s stance on cell phones, we were once upon a time “conscious of and willing to pay for” Internet access “and the content that goes with it.” What happened? The Vollmers, Frelinghuysens and Rothenbergs of the world found a way to help us forget that. And it’s not like the fact that paying for content is going to somehow make us all completely intolerant toward advertising– TV and radio may provide free content (unless you get fancy with cable and XM…), but we still pay to see ads in every newspaper and magazine we buy.
It was all a natural progression, though, and as long as we have eyes and wallets there will always be an unsolicited message from Viagra there to welcome them.
And with wonderful new technology like the find-a-friend cell phone software that’s coming out (yes… it actually pinpoints your whereabouts and broadcasts them across cellular networks… nothing could possibly go wrong), just think of the possibilities. Talk about personalized content—if marketers can track where we are within a few-block radius, the notion of targeted content will take on a whole new meaning (go to Chili’s! No, seriously man, it’s like right behind you!).
February 18th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I second Rob’s annoyance with the cell phone advertising. Although it hasn’t reached an involuntary level yet as far as I can tell (a lot of people sign up for services that by nature come with advertisements), I see it heading that direction. And I don’t want to deal with it.
One thing Brenna touched on is the form advertising takes on the Internet. It seems like companies are still figuring out the best way to get Internet users’ eyes on their advertisements. Do they run a video like a standard TV commercial? Do they slap a still image on a news website? Do they create obscenely annoying songs and jingles, akin to radio advertising, that scare me when I open up a site and don’t know where the sound is coming from?
Based on my own use, it seems those are the manifestations of online advertising.
But do they work? The Internet is *interactive*. This is going to sound evil, but I’d say advertising that engages the user would be really successful.
Yeah, I log on to read the news or to blog or read email, not engage with Pepsi’s latest song mixer online. But it seems like that would work because the user can control the ad like he or she can control the rest of their Internet content.
Around Christmas Office Max or Office Depot (don’t remember) had a really goofy thing where you could place your face and your friends’ faces on dancing elves and email it. I thought it was awesome, and I sent it to a bunch of my friends. I liked it because it was personal and I could control it.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
This fall, Matt Bigelow and I went to a conference downtown for companies looking to take advantage of social networking in order to promote their products or services. It seems that everyone already knows that, at least right now, there’s not much money or benefit to online advertising, but the one really dynamic thing the internet offers companies is an opportunity for word-of-mouth marketing: viral videos (which lots of companies have done) are the perfect example, but other things like cool interactive Web sites where you can take a survey to post on your MySpace, create your own whatever, etc., can not only foster an environment where the individual consumer spends a ton of time interacting one-on-one with the company, but also an advertising product that consumers are likely to pass on to other consumers. Of course, this can backfire, as Matt and I discussed in our article (http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=64987).
The other thing companies have noticed is the internet fostering a return to the good old-fashioned days of consumers discussing the efficacy of products with other consumers. Think about it: if you’re considering buying a computer, a carpet stain remover, or whatever, and you don’t know what to get, you’re pretty damn likely to get online and check out what other consumers have said about particular products. Companies both love and hate this, but it’s majorly affecting how consumers get information about the products they’re interested in.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
SORRY IF THIS POSTS TWICE… I CAN’T GET IT TO WORK!
This fall, Matt Bigelow and I went to a conference downtown for companies looking to take advantage of social networking in order to promote their products or services. It seems that everyone already knows that, at least right now, there’s not much money or benefit to online advertising, but the one really dynamic thing the internet offers companies is an opportunity for word-of-mouth marketing: viral videos (which lots of companies have done) are the perfect example, but other things like cool interactive Web sites where you can take a survey to post on your MySpace, create your own whatever, etc., can not only foster an environment where the individual consumer spends a ton of time interacting one-on-one with the company, but also an advertising product that consumers are likely to pass on to other consumers. Of course, this can backfire, as Matt and I discussed in our article (http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=64987).
The other thing companies have noticed is the internet fostering a return to the good old-fashioned days of consumers discussing the efficacy of products with other consumers. Think about it: if you’re considering buying a computer, a carpet stain remover, or whatever, and you don’t know what to get, you’re pretty damn likely to get online and check out what other consumers have said about particular products. Companies both love and hate this, but it’s majorly affecting how consumers get information about the products they’re interested in.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I think Brenna made a really interesting point. We aren’t bothered by TV ads because they’re an established, necessary part of the television experience, and we understand that. It’s when you take a potty break or go get a drink.
But when you’re online, looking for something particular and a Jeep starts driving across your screen asking you to click it, it’s somewhat infuriating. However, I do think that some stations have hit the mark when it comes to advertising.
Now, yes I admit it; I’m a One Tree Hill fan. But have you seen the way the WB advertises? (Maybe you can all hearken back to the Dawson’s Creek days.) At the end of each episode, they tell you what music you just heard in the background and to go to the Web site to download. Now, they’ve been doing that for the past 10 years, so hardly innovative. But they’ve also taken it a step further. “Want to dress like the stars from One Tree Hill?” Go to the Web site and they tell you where the clothes came from and how you can get them. They also put their shows online (I think a week after they air). But their advertising, based on the demographic of viewers for each show, is kind of amazing. It’s a different take on having a company sponsor the show.
OK, now I’m gonna go wallow in my dorkdom.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Heather - I was thinking the same thing about Dean Lavine while I read! All his favorite buzzwords were here.
I agree with Rob on the cell phone advertisement thing. I remember reading that airlines are now selling space on barf bags to advertisers. Companies will find ANY way to put ads in front of eyeballs, and if interactive media force us to watch ‘em (to get to the online TV show or whatever), so much the better.
Brenna (and Hanady above) touched on something I was thinking about while reading: why haven’t Web sites figured out how to advertise to us yet? I’ll complacently keep my eyes glued to a television set during commercials, but on the internet it’s a bombardment of pop-up videos, interactive ads (”Slap the Buddha!”), sneaky tailored Google ads, and a host of other forms. Why are we so much more frustrated with these advertisements than with commercials?
February 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Okay. First off, Rob’s post reminded me of this great short story by a guy named George Saunders whom everyone should read. I found the text of the story here: http://www.spunge.org/~uriah/grandson.txt. Unfortunately it’s poorly formated and therefore tough to get through. But you all really should read it. It involves chips encoded with personal information placed in people’s shoes. These chips allow holographic ads to tailor their messages to bystanders. The characters in the story are exhorted to “Celebrate your preferences!” I love how advertising talk is always trying to cloak its efforts at coercion with the sheen of individualism.
On a more mundane topic, I was surprised by how little these “experts” could tell us about the new forms of advertising. The fact is, as nearly everyone has already commented, it’s common knowledge that new media advertising is the wave of the future. But what specifically does that mean? People don’t really know. The advertising world is awash in new ideas and experimental promotions but very few have shown the effectiveness and repeatability that television advertising used to provide. That’s one of the reasons those supposed “laggards” remain devoted to old forms of advertising: they’re more predictable.
Even Google with its cleverly targeted ads hasn’t put forth an answer as to what will revolutionize the online advertising world in the near future. Everyone suspects some great leap forward, but no one can point us even in its general direction. Hence Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick, and its eagerness to get as much advertising talent and insight onto its payroll as possible. Google, perhaps the global leader in online innovation, is hoping to stay nimble enough to follow the ad revenue wherever it may go.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
A lot of points have already been made and posted, so in order to avoid a reduntant post…One question that came to mind when I was reading this article was about oversight. For reasons I do not entirely understand, I perceive “marketing” as something tricky and unscrupulous, like the marketing of high sugar cereals to children. I guess I see it as a necessary evil and was concerned when I read “Fifty-five percent of the respondents in one Yankelovich study said they would pay extra to receive more personalized marketing. In a Washington Post survey of working women conducted by Nielsen Media Research, 44 percent of the respondents (all of whom conduct at least part of their work online) rated the Internet a “very important” medium for prepurchase research on health-care products.” There are a lot of potential abuses of targeted advertising, not the least of which is truthfulness. If the ad is not seen by a broad audience, there is less opportunity for something false to be exposed.
It seems sort of predatory, for lack of a better word, that “marketers can now deliver contextually relevant messages and product information to only those consumers who are interested in choosing a Lexus…” Because not only do marketers try to sell products to people who are interested, but try to encourage people to believe their lives would be improved in some way by having the product. I know this is already happening to some extent, but super-targeted advertising worries me.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Wow, I completely agree with Andrea. I have always viewed advertising as this superhuman industry that is so good about reaching consumers that we don’t even know how they are reaching us. But the web is where they are failing, hands down. I cannot believe that advertisers have not found a more effective way to reach consumers online. They have so many strategists and so much money how is it that they haven’t been able to reinvent the wheel yet? Do they really think oh-so-annoying pop-ups and flashing animations will influence us into buying? How do they evaluate their techniques? Just by how many people click on the ad? Well, I can say from personal experience that a click does not necessarily mean an ad has reached its target because I have accidently clicked on an ad only to hurried escape my error.
Everyone needs to find a way to make money online. I may hate ads online, but I support them because without them no media company could profit. But there has to be a better way. The few who do it do it well but they are certainly in the minority. The majority still rely on other mediums for their big campaigns and I think that is a flaw. When will the glamorous ads of Vogue or the hilarious ads that show during the Superbowl find their way online? If they can entertain me I will give them their 15 seconds of fame.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:40 am
While I was reading this article I was thinking about my preferences as to how I’d like advertisers to approach me.
I do not mind those one-line, personally tailored Google AdSense ads on the side of my screen when I read my gmail. Sometimes it’s amusing to see what kinds of products pop up relating to what I’m reading or writing.
I’m not really into video games, but when I saw that advertisers had placed billboards in the settings of certain games my brothers played, I thought it was clever and actually lent an air of authenticity to the environment. This wouldn’t quite work in an environment not meant to be based on reality, though I could see a clever advertiser changing the product to fit within the video game world.
I don’t really mind those 30-second ads shown before video clips on news sites, though it gets annoying to watch the same one over and over again if I feel like watching more than one clip.
I also don’t mind the occasional ad in my Facebook news feed. I actually signed up to receive Blockbuster videos by mail last week by clicking on a Facebook ad. I was able to complete the entire registration and payment process on-line. The service publishes what movies I’ve ordered on my news feed, which could be irritating but so far has just served as a conversation piece.
I’ve voluntarily watched multiple Honda Element commercials in a row on YouTube. A whole series of amusing vignettes involving the cars talking to different animals was created and put on-line. I rarely see the ads on television. They don’t need to be there. I’m inspired to spend way more time being encouraged to buy a Honda Element on my own if I have control over what I watch.
What I dislike are ads that seem to damage the autonomy of the thing to which they are attached. I don’t like it when Facebook offers $1 gifts that are blatantly just promotions for a movie or product. I don’t like it when products are awkwardly integrated into videos. I don’t accept the authority of a website covered in flashing banner ads.
I think advertisers need to find ways to capture the spirit of whatever medium they’re using so that they don’t seem clunky or misplaced. They should be upfront about their purpose so that I don’t feel deceived. Ads don’t have to be shameful or secretive things.