Reading the New York Times recently, I was very happy to learn that I could vote for my favorite new flavor of Crest toothpaste. Brilliant. My vote could make the difference between the
commercialization of Lemon Ice versus Tropica Exotica. So imagine my disappointment when, just as I was preparing to register, I read that I was going to receive follow up e-mails to remind me how
important it was to vote every day. Oh, dear. Why isn't once enough? Why can't I just go, vote, have fun, and move on? Do I really need to be drawn into an ongoing dialogue with Procter and Gamble?
Perhaps I should be grateful for small mercies and stop moaning. It's nice at least that even the world's most traditional marketers are finally recognizing that communication is a two-way
street. But why do they have to keep missing the mark by forcing old process into new approaches?
I think it's fair to say that there are two things that are guaranteed to get consumers
to tune out. The first is intrusion and the second is boredom. Yet even the more adventurous, fresh-thinking approaches from mainstream marketers remain intrusive and boring.
Of those
offenses against the consumer, intrusion is, it appears, the least defensible. A recent study by Pew confirmed (big surprise) that people don't like pop-up ads. Nor do they like it when their
computers slow down and their home page switches. And they are doing something about it. A third of them have stopped downloading software and a quarter no longer download music or videos. Yet despite
such trends, the pop-ups keep popping up and marketers keep intruding.
I took heart, though, when I read that even some of the pioneers of intrusive media approaches were feeling the
occasional pangs of conscience, realizing perhaps that they strayed too far.
Johann Kramer is one of them. Kramer is the much-lauded co-founder of KesselsKramer, the influential
communications agency in Amsterdam. He recently related the tale of a campaign his company ran for Nike after it inked a deal to sponsor the Dutch national soccer team.
Knowing that the
Dutch national team wears orange, KesselsKramer stuck Nike logos on orange traffic lights all over Amsterdam. The campaign got lots of publicity and was considered pretty innovative in 1997. But now
Kramer wishes he'd never done it. As a consumer, guerrilla media has begun to overwhelm him. In his words, "There are now even companies that sell ad space in toilets. It's horrible - can I be alone
for a minute, please?"
I'm sure that's a sentiment that many of us share. But, I don't think our pleas for peace are being heard. I noticed that a new media company promoted itself based
on a taxi-top technology that targets messages based on the demographics of the city block where the taxi is riding. The company said this tactic provides a "refreshing sense of immediacy." To me, it
feels like mass stalking.
Now, I could probably put up with a degree of intrusion if I knew I was going to be entertained in the process. But the boring intrusion is just pouring salt on
fresh wounds. Poor old Crayola is paying the price for a rather boring commitment to what was once an entertaining idea. Way ahead of their time, they offered consumers the opportunity to name their
own crayon colors. The first contest - in the dark days of 1993 - drew 2 million entries. Alas, 12 years (and no new ideas) later, Crayola counted a meager 25,000 votes.
It's not easy
constantly coming up with fresh ideas, so I can sympathize with the desire to stick with an old message. But ultimately it's a losing proposition. Old data that defends the practice of sticking with
winning formulas is flawed data.
But at least we're moving in the right direction, with mainstream marketers trying to engage consumers rather than bombard them. The next step is simply
to entertain them to the point that they seek out the brand. From a consumer's perspective, that's going to be a great deal more appealing than having marketers try and bore them into submission.