• by Jim Meskauskas , February 20, 2002

First, I wanted to address the use of a word in last week’s column. Just to be clear:

I meant "areté" (virtue), not 'eidos' (είδος), which means 'nature,' 'type' or 'species.' The kind of virtue as was meant by the ancient Greeks, such as: "The virtue of Ulysses was his cunning and guile." Though 'eidos' is close, in that it refers to the nature of something, I agree with Ezra Pound about the word "areté" -- that the word is more about innate quality of person or object, like a Platonic form, rather than an address of rectitude or probity.

Unfortunately the editors let the spell-checker change the word to 'arête,' which is a French word usually referring the bone along the back of a fish or to a jagged mountainous ridge... literally means, 'fish bone.' The word comes from the Latin, 'arista,' meaning, "beard of grain." THAT is not what I meant in reference to intrusiveness in advertising.

I will try to keep it simpler next time… though I can’t promise anything.*

So, one last go-round on the matter of intrusiveness in advertising and then it will be time to move off this topic. The subject has, however, instigated a great deal of discussion. It is obvious that there are a great diversity of opinions about (a) whether good advertising actually is or needs to be intrusive and (b) just what constitutes intrusiveness.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines intrusive as “characterized by intrusion,” “a projecting inward,” and “intruding where one is not welcome nor invited.”

Now, I’d argue that the first two of these explicitly pertain to advertising. I suppose a case can be made that the last of these definitions does not explicitly pertain to advertising because we, as media consumers, have an unspoken social contract of sorts with our media that in order to have content there must be advertising to support its existence. I’ll let that one go.

But really, good advertising has to be intrusive in order to be, well, ‘good.’ Someone on the Spin Board suggested that good advertising has to be noticed and engaged, but it does not need to be intrusive in order to make this happen. It seems to me, though, that all advertising really is intrusive, regardless of whether or not the message or its format is something you like. My guess is you would be hard pressed to find anyone who chooses to see ads in-program. That is part of what makes advertising work. It needs to have relevance and it needs to arrest attention. The challenge of this media is, however, the overwhelming amount of control the audience has over what content they engage and how they engage it.

This suggests to me that the medium, provided it wants to exist in any robust fashion, has to allow for a greater degree of intrusion than any advertising form previously. This is not to say that a greater degree of intrusiveness can’t be accompanied by more interesting, creative, and sublime advertising. But the ease with which one can “flip” channels for alternative content suggests to me that an even greater effort on the part of advertisers needs to be made to catch and keep an individual’s attention. Some have posited that more intrusive, “noisier” units will play into the hands of greater user control and drive audiences away. I believe that “noisier” advertising is necessary BECAUSE of that greater amount of user control.

Unfortunately, a great deal of discussion and debate about advertising and how it should be done takes place within the self-reflective inner Cabal of advertising professionals. We sometimes lose perspective and forget that this is a business, and that the object of business is to generate revenue. Advertising and Publishing are no different. Media vehicles want to make money, so they sell advertising. Advertisers buy advertising because it might help them make money. Works for everyone, provided the model is sound. Advertisers buying advertising on sites that demonstrate value -- i.e. my message will likely reach and influence people I want to buy my widgets – is a pretty fundamental and sound model in this business. Quiet, wispy banners hidden on sites that sublimely propose that maybe I ought to check out their value proposition might not be intrusive or annoying or disruptive, but I doubt they sell product.

This industry is getting there. As we continue to increase our range of experiences and depth of knowledge about just how this medium works, the better our tools get and the smarter we are about using them. “Intrusion,” for lack of a better word, is going to continue to be a part of that movement.

I, for one, am happy to see this industry evolve from a despotic Bronze Age to a Republican Iron Age. The weapons are getting stronger, sharper, and more effective, while the armies deploying them are getting more deliberative and strategic.

Long live the Pax Cyberus Marketus!

* The editors sincerely apologize for the oversight and promise to never ever do it again.