I’ve said it a million times: It takes creativity to break through the clutter. Here’s an ad that does just that:
2009 was rough year, and a lot of companies have dramatically cut their marketing budgets. A lot of brand advertising budget has been moved to sales promotion.
You gotta do what you gotta do. But whatever you do, don’t cut corners on creativity. Bland and boring never sells.
One of the Seven Keys to Responsible Marketing is being message responsible. That means marketers should respect all their audiences by seeking permission, telling the truth, honoring privacy and avoiding clutter.
Yelling at consumers isn’t very respectful, and the U.S. House of Representatives has recently approved a bill which aims to limit the volume of television advertisements.
Eric Weaver at Tribal DDB in Vancouver calls it “A win for consumers, a loss for self-interested advertisers” and I couldn’t agree more.
But what do you think? Should the government regulate annoying advertising?
Comment below to weigh in.
You know the ads on the right hand column of your Facebook feeds page?
Here’s a view I’ve received a lot lately:
Yeah. I know. You’ve seen these ads enough already.
Not sure why I’d receive ‘em…I’m not a gamer and there’s nothing in my profile that would lead you to believe I’d be interested in this. In fact, I really don’t like seeing a gun or a crime scene every time I log on to Facebook.
So I’ve nuked these ads whenever I’ve seen them, using Facebook’s advertising feedback feature:
Now that’s what advertisers and users are looking for: Users can receive tailored ads, and advertisers can build a feedback loop for their creative.
Well, at least in concept.
You see, I decided to delete all the “Mafia Wars” ads that popped up, and they simply kept appearing—sometimes two to three of them at once. It didn’t seem to matter which reason I gave, they still littered my screen.
Look, I like a good mob movie as much as the next guy—but what if I really found these offensive? I’d be pissed.
This practice isn’t just anti-user, it’s anti-advertiser.
Somebody has said every way they can that they don’t want to see your ad—but Facebook is still serving them up?
Sure, the feedback widget says “Over time, this information helps us deliver more relevant ads to our users” but if you are given the option to remove an ad because it’s offensive, misleading or anything else on the list, shouldn’t your wishes be granted there and then? Are there any advertisers out there that really want to offend people over and over?
I started deleting the “Mafia Wars” ads weeks ago. And while they don’t pop up nearly as much, I’m still receiving them.
It’s nice Facebook is asking for feedback, especially since it appears they are using the information provided to improve the user experience…somewhat.
But they aren’t asking people to passively answer a poll regarding the color of their wallpaper. They are asking people if they find an ad offensive or misleading. If the user says “yes, this offends me,” the ad needs to disappear from their user experience—forever.
What do you think?
The wisdom of children always amazes me.
On the way to Little League practice yesterday, my six-year-old son heard a radio ad that made him ask “why?”
A radio ad for two nights stay at a regional hotel for “only $950!” is what set him off.
His response:
Only $950?!! Why do they always say ‘Only $950?!’… that’s a lot of money!
By “they” he was talking about marketers, especially on the radio.
I was surprised by his passion and proud he was asking the question. But without thinking, I told him it was because that made it seem more affordable—that it would make it seem like it cost less.
His response: “But it’s $950! Saying ‘only’ doesn’t make it less.”
He was right of course, and I’ve been thinking about what he said ever since.
As marketers, we’ve ‘perfected’ copy. We know that certain words and phrases will improve lift.
But are using words like “only” before a price really respecting the intelligence of your audience?
My kindergartener says no, but what do you think?
Subscribe to this feed.
The LA Times got itself in some hot water last week, not once, but twice, for passing off advertising as news.
On Thursday, it ran a mock news article promoting NBC’s Southland on the front page:
On Sunday, the L.A. Times ran a four-page ad for the movie “The Soloist,” laid out like a news section.
Passing off advertising as content has been done before. We discussed a far more clever execution last year when AMC bought several pages and the cover of Ad Age to promote its Mad Men series last summer.
Is it smart?
The fact is passing off advertising as content is seldom this brazen, but it is common. There’s good reason to do it: nobody watches TV, listens to the radio or reads a newspaper for the ads. They are there for the content.
This is one way to slip advertising past the consumer before they change the channel, turn the page or boop it forward on the TiVO.
Or deceptive?
Geneva Overholser, director of the school of journalism at the USC, called the ad “deeply offensive,” and went on to say—
Readers don’t want to be fooled, they don’t like the notion that someone is attempting to deceive them. This breaks perhaps the most important bond that newspapers have with their readers, which, to me, is a bond of trust.
So what do you think?
Is passing off advertising as content deceptive and to be avoided or smart and to be applauded?
Comment below to weigh in.
Thanks to Martin Pierce for the tip.
