| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSFear not, I am not going to make you suffer through another version of the "No More Internet Free Lunch" lecture (although it WILL be on the final exam, I assure you.) But I am going to wonder why this noisy crowd that hates all forms of online advertising isn't picketing up and down 6th Avenue ranting at the broadcast networks for "taking over my screen" for ads and not just for 15 or 30 seconds, but for three or four minutes at a time at least four times an hour? And that doesn't count the promo craplets that run on the screen during the programming.
Where were these outraged voices when newspapers (bless their dying little hearts) started taking over 9/10th of each page with display ads for department stores? Not a lot of "screen real estate" left on those pages for news was there? Why weren't there riots when these fine folks settled into their $10 seats for the 7:15 start of a movie, only to suffer through the screen being "taken over" for the next 8 to 12 minutes with ads? How about those September issues of magazines that are (at least used to be) 80% ads? Where was the outrage of having to flip past spread after spread of "full screen takeovers" to find the first edit story?
When people sit down at their PCs a strange sense of entitlement overcomes them. They think they are entitled to free content. Free apps. Free movies. Free music. Free research that 20 years ago they would have paid hundreds of dollars for to get in a week - that now takes 15 minutes. Not that the internet is free. The ISPs are doing everything possible to make it more expensive to deliver service at speeds which would be considered an insult and a rip off in most other developed countries. But that only covers the hardware to pump the Web into your home, not the billions of pages of news, entertainment, games, porn, etc. that are available within a few clicks.
That misplaced sense of entitlement doesn't end with "I want it now and I want it free." Everyone thinks that because they have a Facebook page or a blog or a website that they have fractional ownership of the Web. And in that tiny little bit of electronic real estate they can post pretty much whatever they want regardless of who else it may harm, injure or insult. Or, in most cases, bore to tears. Twenty years ago were these folks all writing annoying letters to the editor of their local pager to opine they way they do online now? Or did they hire film makers to chronicle their sad little lives and play the results on a betamax loop running on a 26 in TV in their front yard for all the neighbors to watch? Being invited over to someone's home to watch a carrousel of 250 slides they took in Venice was an open invitation to drop a couple of Quaaludes and down a pint of gin before the lights were dimmed.
I don't care if the internet is a lean forward medium (or it is lean backwards, I can never keep it straight), there is no excuse for everybody to think that it is all about them and that marketers have no role to play in their little digital worlds. As much as Google would like to believe it, the world of online advertising is not going to start and end with little search-based text ads. "Big, intrusive, bash-you-on-the-head sorts of advertisements" are on their way and if you don't watch them, then don't get pissy when all the major content providers start asking you for $15 a month to access what you used to think was your birthright to get free. Five cents to update that MySpace page, please. That'll be 50 cents to watch that video my friend. Nice to see you, see us $2 to read that review.
You will beg for the return of an ad supported Internet.
39 people recommend this article.
RSS FEEDS
The result is a new sense of being "owed" something. The half-eaten meal should now be free and a scenario unfolds similar to what's being addressed above: sense of entitlement. They feel that because they're eating at a restaurant, the restaurant's role is to satisfy their personal intended need, rather than a larger mass of individuals. If the restaurant fails, shame on them. They should somehow be owed back their perhaps one-time commitment to them. What's really going on here is people's lack to accept loss or risk - a cake and eat it too mentality. You take a chance every time you pay for a meal that it might not be quit as good as mom's home cooked meal. If your satisfaction isn't reached, you move one. Never go back to that place again. Same goes for an online site. Sign-up, try the service and make a decision whether to stay or go. You don't have the right, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SERVICE IS FREE, to be a picker and chooser. Don't like a site with too many ads? Find another site without them.
BTW I voted with my feet re: magazines and newspapers a few years ago. Passive means not having a voice - doesn't mean that we don't stop buying.Hence a dying greedy industry.
I look forward to your comments there.
I think Uwe Hook makes some valid points -- lest anyone be in danger of forgetting it, advertising has to be about more than extracting eyeballs/clicks/dollars from consumers. For advertising to be effective it has to offer some value and relevancy to an audience -- and being interrupted or misdirected while intending to do something else or in the midst of a contained process (whether that take the form of an online interstitial, misleading link, commercial break in the middle of a sentence, etc.) is going to arouse more ire and negative affect for a brand than it is going to inspire curiosity and interest.
I think the sense of entitlement swings both ways, honestly. If consumer feedback indicates that being bashed over the head with an irrelevant ad in the middle of trying to leave a comment on a story is intrusive, why on earth should marketers feel they have some sort of divine right to continue an ineffective practice *for both parties*? It's not the consumer's job to keep companies in business -- it's the company's job to figure out how to provide good value and engage with a receptive audience in a way that leads to profits. It's not enough to pretend that if we don't slather the entire internet with "lose 10 lbs. in 3 weeks" ads that society will crumble. The technology of the internet is an unprecedented opportunity for marketing to be far more relevant, targeted and engaging than all the other "one stream fits all" analog media we've seen to date and yet -- are advertisers and companies truly taking advantage of that yet, or merely attempting to recreate old forms from old media and whining about its reduced impact on a far more media-savvy generation of consumers?
On another note, Martha Stewart Living today announced that they are testing a pay to view system for their online video content. Change is happening and is long overdue in my opinion.
Now if an easy to use micropayment system could just appear and remove the last bit of friction from this ecosystem we would be good to go. Paypal? Google Checkout? the world awaits your micropayment system! Jeff Bach
But the fine point still remains that if users want a site's content enough they might need to be prepared to jump through hoops and pay with time and tolerance and not complain...or pony up cash. :-)
To suck it up and endure ads is not a sustainable path for marketing. To deliver creative and interesting experiences is the way to go. Waterboarding people into consuming advertising and, ultimately, buying your product might have worked 20 years ago. Because of the freedom of communication and choices the Internet provides, these tactics should be put in a museum.
I've often preached to friends who complain about ads that they should probably suck it up and accept them unless they're willing to pay for the content.