Feeling like an alcoholic who slipped after 20 years of sobriety, I found myself reading this nonsense in a byliner: "Content, especially delivered in a native environment, works because
consumers don't want to feel they are being marketed to. Rather, they want to make great decisions about what to buy and who to buy from in trusted environments. They expect brands
to blend into their daily lives and offer value appropriate to what they are seeking in that specific setting."
Let’s reduce this swill line by line:
Content,
especially delivered in a native environment, works because consumers don't want to feel they are being marketed to. Yes, you are so right. It better to disguise your pitch as
"interesting content" than to let consumers know they are being marketed to. That totally builds consumers’ trust of brands.
Personally, I am entirely comfortable with brands
staying on their side of the separation of church and state so that I know from the get-go that I am being marketed to. Making the whole process some sort of guessing game just pisses me off (as it
does to many others, I suspect.). While I’m not a big fan of seeing the same ads over and over again, I don't mind seeing them in any context the first time or two. The notion that consumers
don't want to feel they are being marketed to is patently absurd.
Rather, they want to make great decisions about what to buy and who to buy from in trusted environments. Not
sure how you delineate a "great" decision from a regular decision unless that is some vague allusion to buyers’ remorse, which must inevitably result from making a purchase in a
"non-trusted" environment.
More nonsense. If "trusted" is a key part of this equation, how does that square with deceiving consumers that they are being marketed to?Doesn't that
somewhat sully the "environment"? Even the best "environments," like network TV, do themselves no favors by using the stars of adjacent shows to introduce commercials in a lame attempt to stop
fast-forwarding. How do they think audiences react to this? With pleasant surprise and open wallets? Probably just the opposite.
They expect brands to blend into their daily lives and offer
value appropriate to what they are seeking in that specific setting. The very LAST thing I want is for brands to blend into my daily life. Already they intrude into places they are not
welcome. Not a day goes by that somebody doesn't launch a new business that promises to put ads in more places that will only add to the clutter of the 5,000 or so ad impressions we see a day,
training us to further turn off all our senses to ads. At my gym I wear headphones because they stop the PA music to pitch club offers to one-time guests. This is untargeted noise to 99.99% of the
folks on the workout floor who are already members. Building good will? Just the opposite.
This is why I am such a fan of print ads, whose virtues are: 1) They are clearly marked as ads.
2) I know I am being marketed to, and I am totally okay with that. 3) They do not intrude on my enjoyment of news "content." 4) When I turn the page, it is over and done with. 5) They don't follow me
around online lurking for a chance to retarget. 6) They are great to drain freshly cooked French fries on.