tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099657317987847622024-03-13T05:10:05.489-07:00Interactive Television or Interactive TVThe failure of conventional advertising to sell products means that new methods of two-way communication have to be developed. These new methods must use interactivity to successfully repersonalise and rehumanise the communication experience.Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.comBlogger439125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-77561842426216310582013-03-13T02:23:00.001-07:002013-03-13T02:23:36.935-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang="">
</span><br />
<br />
<b><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"></span></span></u></b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><div align="CENTER">
Is buzz no more valuable than an ad?</div>
</span><br /></span><br /></u><br /></b><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"></span></span></u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"> What if the experts are wrong and ads are just as persuasive as buzz? This can't <br />
<br />
be possible, can it? The experts have told us that there is a new breed of human<br />
<br />
being out there who no longer wants to be marketed to. She pays no attention <br />
<br />
to ads. She is immune to the "interruption model" and we need to get her <br />
<br />
"permission" to market to her. <br />
<br />
Not so fast, says David Michaelson Co., a New York-based company that <br />
<br />
studies measurement of communications effectiveness,and has compared the<br />
<br />
effect of publicity with traditional advertising in a controlled experiment. He<br />
<br />
and a co-author presented research subjects with a faked ad for an invented<br />
<br />
product, and a faked newspaper article about the same product. On a scale of 1 <br />
<br />
to 10, the article was a 10 "from the standpoint of a publicist's dream article," <br />
<br />
Dr. Michaelson says. Yet their study showed that the article was no more <br />
<br />
effective than the ad in building brand awareness. Now here's something to<br />
<br />
think about. I have no idea of the validity of this study. But if it's true that<br />
<br />
people are not terribly moved by "buzz" in reputable media like newspapers,<br />
<br />
how much power do you think buzz has in dopey social media like blogs, and <br />
<br />
Twitter and Facebook?<br />
<br />
Maybe buzz is exactly what it sounds like -- just a lot of mouths yapping.</span></span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-31551498227380310202013-03-12T11:40:00.000-07:002013-03-12T11:40:05.049-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang="">
</span><br />
<br />
<b><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"></span></span></u></b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"> <br />
<br />
<div align="CENTER">
On-line research has some major advantages.</div>
</span></span></u></b><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><div align="CENTER">
<br /></div>
</span></span></u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><div align="CENTER">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="CENTER">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="CENTER">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"> </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">It is often less expensive than standard methods and also quicker to yield results. However, as currentlypracticed, it is fatally flawed."We're perpetuating a fraud," is what Simon Chadwick has to say. Mr. Chadwick is former head of NOP Research in the U.K. and is now principal of Cambiar, a Phoenix consultancy. <br />
<br />
Surveys tend to poll the same people over and over.In fact, a study done by ComScore Networks indicated that one-quarter of one percent of the population provides about one-third of all on-line responses. This means that instead of getting one vote, each of these respondents is getting the equivalent of 128 votes.We are getting the same people responding over and over again to earn points so they can win a toaster. Or as Mr. Chadwick calls them, "professional respondents who go hunting for...dollars. What's so terrible about professional <br />
<br />
respondents, you might ask? Pulitzer Prize winning New York <br />
<br />
Times science writer Natalie Angier says: Nothing tarnishes the <br />
<br />
credibility of a sample like the desire to be sampled.... a good pollster will <br />
<br />
hound and re-hound the very people who least want to cooperate. So not <br />
<br />
only are these people ridiculously over-represented, they are the wrong <br />
<br />
people. "It's like the hole in the ozone layer," said Shari Morwood, <br />
<br />
VP-worldwide market research at IBM in an article in Advertising <br />
<br />
Age. "Everyone knows it's a growing problem. But they just ignore it and <br />
<br />
go on to the next project." Kim Dedeker, VP-consumer and market <br />
<br />
knowledge at P&G, describes an example in which online and mail surveys <br />
<br />
came up with diametrical results. "If I only had the online result.... I would have <br />
<br />
taken a bad decision right to the top management," she said. In another case, <br />
<br />
two surveys conducted a week apart by the same online researcher yielded <br />
<br />
completely different recommendations. Furthermore, most of these on-line <br />
<br />
researchers don't validate their samples. They don't know who is responding. It <br />
<br />
could be my daughter using my computer saying she's me. Or saying she's you <br />
<br />
for that matter. And if all that weren't enough, many of them don't limit <br />
<br />
responses. <br />
<br />
I can log in as five different people and respond five different times. Or <br />
<br />
fifty. Or a hundred and twenty-eight. Another lovely bit of hokum they <br />
<br />
perpetrate is the degree of confidence. They tell us that their results are <br />
<br />
accurate with a 95% degree of confidence. However, they never quite tell <br />
<br />
us what it is that they're confident about. Is it that, in general, a study with <br />
<br />
this many legitimate respondents will be statistically valid 95% of the time? Or <br />
<br />
is it that their interpretation of subjective data will be 95% accurate (by the <br />
<br />
way, no one's interpretation of subjective data is 95% accurate) Or is it <br />
<br />
something else? Let's give them the benefit of the doubt for a minute and <br />
<br />
say that their sample is legitimate (which is highly unlikely) and that they <br />
<br />
are brilliant people who can interpret data almost flawlessly. Let's take a <br />
<br />
look at what 95% degree of confidence means under the best of circumstances. <br />
<br />
Once again we'll turn to Ms. Angier from her book The Canon. Here's an <br />
<br />
example she gives. You go for an HIV test. You test positive. The test is said <br />
<br />
to be 95% accurate. This means you have a 95% chance of having the HIV <br />
<br />
virus, right? Not even close. What it means is that 95% of the time people who <br />
<br />
have the HIV virus will test positive. But it also means that 5% of the time <br />
<br />
people who do not have the HIV virus will test positive. Now let's say <br />
<br />
you live in a town with 100,000 people. Fortunately, the HIV virus is very rare <br />
<br />
and only appears in 1 person out of 350. So in your town of 100,000 people, <br />
<br />
this means that there will be about 285 people with the HIV virus (100,000 <br />
<br />
divided by 350). But if we tested all the people in your town, we would get <br />
<br />
about 5,000 positives (remember, 5% of the time people who do not have the <br />
<br />
virus will test positive) and almost all of these 5,000 positives would be <br />
<br />
false.,mIn fact when you do the math, after testing positive not only is <br />
<br />
there not a 95% chance you have the virus, there is about a 5% chance you have <br />
<br />
it. And an almost 95% chance you don't have the virus.* So much for a 95% <br />
<br />
level of confidence.We advertising and marketing people are drowning in <br />
<br />
opinions and starving for facts. But we have to be very careful about <br />
<br />
distinguishing between the two. In the advertising world, research is no <br />
<br />
different from creative work. Some of it is very good, some of it is worthless <br />
<br />
and dangerous.To figure out the accuracy of the result, you divide the total <br />
<br />
number of true positives you'd expect from your sample (95% of 285, or 271)<br />
<br />
by the total number of true and false positives (5,257) and you wind up with a <br />
<br />
probability of having the HIV virus is actually about 5.2%, not 95%. If you<br />
<br />
can't follow the math, and you don't trust me, don't worry. You can trust Ms.<br />
<br />
Angier, she has a Pulitzer Prize. All I have interactive marketing <br />
<br />
communication.</span></span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-24119171457223824272013-03-12T01:34:00.000-07:002013-03-12T01:34:50.436-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang=""><h2 align="CENTER">
<u>An article in American Express says, "not so fast".</u></h2>
</span><u><span style="font-size: large;"><div align="CENTER">
<br /></div>
</span></u><span style="font-size: large;"><div align="CENTER">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="CENTER">
</div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">Senior marketers were asked which components of their current digital<br />
<br />
marketing programs"search, email, display advertising, social networking, and <br />
<br />
mobile advertising"delivered the best results. Only 11% cited social <br />
<br />
networking.<br />
<br />
As you know,IMG is highly skeptical of this type of research. The remarkable <br />
<br />
thing, however, is that with social media getting so much hype, the tendency of <br />
<br />
people who have invested in it would be to exaggerate its effectiveness. <br />
<br />
Instead, it was tied for effectiveness with "I don't know." Marketers also said<br />
<br />
that social media is significantly less effective than banner ads (display <br />
<br />
advertising), and I just don't know how anything can be less effective than that.<br />
<br />
Mobile advertising, by the way, didn't even make the chart. As I said 6 months <br />
<br />
ago in a previous posting. "IMG predicts that when the frenzy over Facebook,<br />
<br />
Twitter, and other social media calms down and the dust clears, email and <br />
<br />
search will continue to be the dreariest and most productive forms of online<br />
<br />
advertising."!<br />
<br />
Discover the surprising benefits of using interactive marketing communication <br />
<br />
contact PaulAshby on paulashby40@yahoo.com or (UK Landline) 01934 <br />
<br />
620047.</span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-62761349125268332222013-03-11T10:27:00.000-07:002013-03-11T10:27:23.777-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang=""><h2 align="CENTER">
<u>"Clicking-toward-oblivion."</u></h2>
</span><span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><div align="CENTER">
"What was once digital advertising's dirty little secret is now </div>
<br />
<div align="CENTER">
its big, ugly problem. Online ad performance figures are dismal..." </div>
<br />
<div align="CENTER">
Adweek</div>
<br />
<div align="CENTER">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Any way you slice it, the key fact is that 15 years after its inception, I <br />
<br />
cannot come up with the name of one major consumer-facing non-native<br />
<br />
brand that has been built primarily by web advertising. It is encouraging, <br />
<br />
however, to see some people within the web advertising community finally<br />
<br />
coming out and admitting the shortcomings. Maybe if <br />
<br />
more web advertising people would stand up and acknowledge the issues <br />
<br />
they could help the web become what we all want it to be -- a more <br />
<br />
effective advertising medium.<br />
<br />
Want more information on Interactive Marketing Communication?<br />
<br />
Contact Paul Ashby : paulashby40@yahoo.com or (UK Landline) 01934 <br />
<br />
620047.</span><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-18495173912134718822013-03-11T01:23:00.000-07:002013-03-11T01:23:23.894-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang=""><strong><u><span style="font-size: large;">
</span></u></strong></span><br />
<h2 align="CENTER">
<u>About 2 months ago I wrote a piece called "Social Media's Massive Failure". </u> </h2>
<u><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u><span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"> It was about the failure of the Pepsi Refresh Project. Most of you disagreed<br />
<br />
with my observations that the Refresh effort was a failure. Recently The New <br />
<br />
Yorker published an article called "Snacks for a Fat Planet". It isn't specifically <br />
<br />
about the Refresh project.<br />
<br />
It is about PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi's attempt to transform the <br />
<br />
company from the world's largest maker of soda and crappy food into a <br />
<br />
company with respectable standards and values. It is actually a very interesting<br />
<br />
article and Nooyi comes off as an intelligent, thoughtful but somewhat jargony <br />
<br />
leader.The article talks about Refresh as part of Pepsi's desire <br />
<br />
to be perceived as a "good" company ...the strategy was to use social media to <br />
<br />
promote the image of PepsiCo... to bring the flagship brand more in line with <br />
<br />
PepsiCo's "performance with purpose" agenda...Then it goes on to note that <br />
<br />
Pepsi's share had dropped 4.8% since the program was introduced.<br />
<br />
... the Refresh campaign garnered more than eighty million votes, <br />
<br />
got three and a half million likes on Pepsi's Facebook page, and drew some <br />
<br />
sixty thousand Twitter followers. But the campaign didn't sell Pepsi.Which to<br />
<br />
my ear sounds an awful lot like this paragraph from Social Media's Massive <br />
<br />
Failure...<br />
<br />
"Over 80 million votes were registered; almost 3.5 million <br />
<br />
"likes" on the Pepsi Facebook page; almost 60,000 Twitter followers. The only <br />
<br />
thing it failed to do was sell Pepsi." The article concludes...<br />
<br />
"It appears that hearing about all the good things that PepsiCo is doing to help <br />
<br />
make the world a better place does not tempt you to down a <br />
<br />
Pepsi". As we know, there are many in the marketing world who <br />
<br />
cannot see the limitations of social media, no matter how compelling the <br />
<br />
evidence. Consequently, those of us with open minds and functional synapses <br />
<br />
need to remain skeptical and vocal about the "magic" of social media.<br />
<br />
"Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to <br />
<br />
believe." -- Euripides </span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-77330507224847968082013-03-10T13:43:00.000-07:002013-03-10T13:43:26.918-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;"><div align="CENTER">
Do You Understand Why We Need Interactive Communication - urgently?</div>
</span><br /></u><br /></b><u><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u><span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span lang=""></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"> <br />
</span><br /></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span lang="EN-GB"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Quite simply it is the human desire for interaction.<br />
<br />
All advertising is a form of learning whereby the advertiser is asking people to change their <br />
<br />
behaviour after learning the benefits of the products or services on offer. However, we all <br />
<br />
tend to filter out information that we do not want to hear. This clearly alters the effectiveness<br />
<br />
of conventional advertising in quite a dramatic way.<br />
<br />
The final purchase decision is invariably a compromise and this leads to a certain amount of <br />
<br />
anxiety; the worry that perhaps the decision was not the best or the right one. In order to <br />
<br />
minimize this anxiety the purchaser seeks to reinforce their choice and begins to take more <br />
<br />
notice of their chosen product's marketing communications. Additionally we have created a <br />
<br />
media society during the past 40 or 50 years, where the whole communication process has <br />
<br />
been de-humanized and depersonalized.<br />
<br />
Together with an extraordinary reduction in interaction because conventional media together <br />
<br />
with advertising and marketing have become a one-way practice whereby information is<br />
<br />
disseminated in a passive form. People have this desire to be taken account of. To affect <br />
<br />
change, to learn and personalize their relationship with their environment. There are a <br />
<br />
phenomenal number of reasons that cause people to interact, going far beyond just giving <br />
<br />
them things.<br />
<br />
When people agree to participate in truly interactive marketing programmes they are told that <br />
<br />
their efforts and feedback are of positive help to the advertisers. Additionally the attraction of <br />
<br />
interactive communication is that it is a return to the prehistoric human fascination with telling tales!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
People long for more connection between what we do for a living and what we genuinely care <br />
<br />
about. We long for release from anonymity, to be seen as who we feel ourselves to be <br />
<br />
rather than the sum of abstract metrics and parameters. We long to be part <br />
<br />
of a world that makes sense rather than accept the accidental alienation <br />
<br />
imposed by market forces too large to grasp; to even contemplate.<br />
<br />
Commerce is a natural part of human life but is has become increasingly <br />
<br />
unnatural over the intervening centuries, gradually divorcing itself from the <br />
<br />
very people on whom it depends, whether workers or customers. The result has <br />
<br />
been to create a huge chasm between buyers and sellers.<br />
<br />
Advertising's failure! Conventional advertising has failed the natural human need for social <br />
<br />
interaction. We have created a media society during the last 30 or 40 years <br />
<br />
where there is an extraordinary reduction in interaction because of the one-way <br />
<br />
and more passive form of information that exists. People desire to be taken <br />
<br />
account of, to affect change, learn and personalize their relationships with <br />
<br />
their environment. These psychological and sociological factors are part of the <br />
<br />
incentive to interact with advertising.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-72670129066121406822013-03-09T07:25:00.000-08:002013-03-09T07:25:12.633-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang=""><h2 align="CENTER">
<u>Do you agree that Today, the ad industry is being overrun with people who have no idea what is universal and what is transient in our business?</u></h2>
</span><span style="font-size: large;"><div align="CENTER">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="CENTER">
<span style="font-size: medium;">?</span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"> They are not being taught principles, they are being taught tactics.To them, <br />
<br />
Bernbach, Ogilvy and Riney are just names of old dead guys. They never heard<br />
<br />
of Ally and Gargano or Scali, McCabe, Sloves. They have no idea what these <br />
<br />
people and organizations did, or stood for, or taught us about advertising. <br />
<br />
It's our own fault. <br />
<br />
No one is willing to take the time to learn the history so he, or she, can <br />
<br />
teach it. Our own industry organizations - particularly the I.P.A - are <br />
<br />
prime culprits. By desperately trying to remain "relevant" they have sounded a <br />
<br />
constant drumbeat about "digital changing everything" that is not only false, it<br />
<br />
undermines the importance of young peoples' need to learn the history and<br />
<br />
principles of our trade.</span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-5417740504160628262013-03-08T23:35:00.000-08:002013-03-08T23:35:36.513-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<u>Are you looking to engage the voices of consumers with your brands?</u></h2>
<span style="font-size: medium;"><u><b>
<br />
<br />
</b></u></span><u><b><br /></b></u><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><i></i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Help your Clients Face the Challenge of Innovation<br />
</i><br /></span><br /></b><span style="font-size: medium;"><i></i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">Clients need solutions that allow their brands to engage with their consumers <br />
<br />
and get the results they need to move their marketing strategy forward. <br />
<br />
Interactive marketing communication is the key to helping clients innovate.<br />
<br />
A year after first asking the question above, the answer is still "No." Too <br />
<br />
many agencies still are not making themselves an integral part of the new <br />
<br />
reality. As the world becomes more digitally connected, we should celebrate the <br />
<br />
fact that marketing and advertising ideas are coming from everywhere. For me, <br />
<br />
it's inspiring to see the radical evolution of an industry and watch individuals <br />
<br />
take control of a once-closed society made up of Mad Men. The new world can <br />
<br />
be scary for people who still work in the old model. We get that. Change is <br />
<br />
scary. <br />
<br />
But it's also a reality.<br />
<br />
Part of that reality is the fact that </span><b><i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Advertising ignores communication theory.</span></span></i></b><br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">
</span></span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></span></span></i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">As the mass media have matured, the behavioural dynamics of perception and interaction, which were not address by Advertising Agencies in the 70s and 80s, during the explosive growth of advertising have become critical to the redefinition of media and its role in marketing communication. With passive, one way, forms of advertising such as media displays or television advertising, there is a certainty of a degree of non-response. <br />
<b><i></i></b><br />
<b><i>Lack of communication competence.<br />
</i><br /></b><i></i><br />
Most Advertising Agencies lack the skills of communication, advertising messages are more carefully prepared than interpersonal communication and yet ‘message’ comprehension tends to be lower. <br />
<br />
Advertisements are more carefully prepared because gatekeepers (those who <br />
<br />
prepare and send out messages) are more cautious about what they say to large <br />
<br />
audiences than they are to audiences of one or a few, they check their facts <br />
<br />
more carefully and they prepare their syntax and vocabulary more precisely.<br />
<br />
And yet, because their audience contributes much less feedback, the source<br />
<br />
cannot correct for any lapse or understanding, so people are more likely to <br />
<br />
misinterpret what they hear or read over the mass media.<br />
<b><i></i></b><br />
<b><i>The need for Interactive Marketing Communication.<br />
</i><br /></b><i></i><br />
Put simply, because there is a human desire for interaction. We have created a media society during the past 40 or 50 years where there is an extraordinary reduction in interaction because of the one-way and more passive form of information retrieval that exists.<br />
<br />
People desire to be taken account of, to affect change, learn and personalise their relationships with their environment. There are a phenomenal number of reasons, which cause people to interact, which go far beyond just giving them things.<br />
</span><br /></span><b><u><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></u></b><u><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></u><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span lang=""></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"> </span></span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-24026770370762849792013-03-08T05:07:00.000-08:002013-03-08T05:07:14.685-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;"><div align="CENTER">
Are you doing anything about Swinging back the web clutter? </div>
</span><br /></u><br /></b><u><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u><span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><h2>
<br />
Last summer, Starcom released a major study on internet clutter finding that the more ads on a page, the more click-through rates, brand impact and product consideration decline. Jeff Marshall, senior VP-director of the firm's online arm, said since the dot-com bubble burst, many sites have cleaned themselves up. But "not everybody's moved that way. ... We may see that pendulum switch back toward clutter." <br />
<br />
And then there's mobile marketing, where perhaps the greatest risk lies for a new avalanche of commercial content. Though hailed as one of the ad business' great growth areas, it hasn't really taken off, partly because the jury's still out on just how receptive consumers are to commercial messaging on their phones. One commenter from New York City gave this no-duh perspective: "The cellphone is way to [sic] personal to be considered another advert medium. If companies start slamming people with messages, people will be turned off." <br />
<br />
In the end, permission marketing may be advertisers' best bet for gaining acceptance in emerging media that don't come with social contracts of the kind that's governed, say, the TV business for so long -- that is, viewers' tacit willingness to put up with ads since that revenue's underwriting the programming they enjoy. <br />
<br />
"Anytime there's a new destination for people, like YouTube or mobile phones, the assumption is we've got to find a way to put some ads there," Mr. Barocci said. "That's just going to make things worse because there's no social contract. If mobile-phone companies say, 'We'll reduce your bill if you accept ads,' then that's a contract and that's smart." </h2>
</div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-34527384879897081522013-03-08T00:55:00.001-08:002013-03-08T00:55:55.621-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang="">
</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> <br />
</span><b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"></span></span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"> <br />
<u></u><br />
<u> Are We becoming more and more distracted by the various media that continues to proliferate under advertising's largess?<br />
</u><br /></span><br /></span><br /></b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><u></u></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">As advertisers spend more, they extend media's restless tentacles, thus <br />
<br />
distracting us to the point where marketers have to spend yet more to regain our <br />
<br />
attention (if they ever had it in the first place!)<br />
<br />
All the mounting evidence that advertising doesn't work goes totally ignored. <br />
<br />
Recently it was written that most marketing (theory and practice) is wish <br />
<br />
driven. The work on advertising effectiveness convincingly proves that there is <br />
<br />
no evidence that advertising persuades anybody to do anything; advertising can <br />
<br />
only be a 'weak' force.<br />
<br />
The sad thing is that all this evidence is studiously ignored by many <br />
<br />
sections of the marketing community, resulting in the terrible situation we are <br />
<br />
witnessing to-day. Many goals set in marketing are unrealistic. They are <br />
<br />
therefore doomed to failure from the start. Such romantic marketing dreams <br />
<br />
include sustained growth, brand differentiation, persuasive advertising, and are <br />
<br />
totally unrealistic!<br />
<br />
Now, in addition, we have the craven-image of dotcom dementia 2.0<br />
<br />
The problem is that the articles of faith among those who conquered their <br />
<br />
fear, denial, blind faith and desperate attachments to the status quo <br />
<br />
("Advertising works") now face the gathering reality of the chaos scenario! With <br />
<br />
most advertising these days where is one iota of information which will <br />
<br />
sell?<br />
<br />
Mostly they don't tell consumers anything that matters, instead leaving that <br />
<br />
heavy lifting to other, less sexy marketing efforts</span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-34616466534182754142013-03-07T02:17:00.001-08:002013-03-07T02:17:45.963-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;"><div align="CENTER">
Do You agree that Once Upon a Time…?</div>
</span><br /></u><br /></b><u><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u><span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span lang="">
</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">We had the likes of Leo Burnett, David Ogilvy et al. And they were the <br />
<br />
keepers of the flame of advertising. Nowadays no aspect of advertising <br />
<br />
is as badly served as advertising itself. Where to day are the advertising <br />
<br />
voices that ring out as intelligent, passionate, current, and, more importantly, <br />
<br />
critical of current advertising practices? <br />
<br />
Can you, for one moment, even imagine David Ogilvy not giving sarcastic comment to some of what <br />
<br />
passes for advertising these days , especially the use of the new technology? <br />
<br />
Once upon a time we had an excellent heritage of critical <br />
<br />
writing on advertising. Unfortunately to day no one speaks with any authority <br />
<br />
either for or against advertising. In our current trade press the <br />
<br />
lexicon of adjectives used by critics of advertising is zilch, nada,nothing! <br />
<br />
Even worse, the banality of what passes for intelligent commentary on all <br />
<br />
aspects of marketing/advertising is simply that , banal! The current <br />
<br />
crop of writers have forgotten that their first calling is to write readable, <br />
<br />
intelligent and amusing articles. Because like everything else advertising needs <br />
<br />
strong criticism, it needs that to keep advertising strong and innovative. Bad <br />
<br />
advertising, and there happens to be a lot of it around these days, drives out <br />
<br />
good advertising unless there is someone there to stop it. The current <br />
<br />
crop of writers and what they have to say about advertising is growing in <br />
<br />
irrelevance. Sometimes I feel that, when reading the marketing/advertising press <br />
<br />
that they have no idea who they are writing for. Sadly, a myopic tunnel vision <br />
<br />
is bought to bear on the subject currently in vogue , in this instance Web <br />
<br />
2.0. However what is really worrying is the fact that, in the instance <br />
<br />
of Web 2.0, there is no debate as to the suitability of Web 2.0 as an <br />
<br />
advertising medium, there is no debate as to the claims of it being accountable. <br />
<br />
Which, by the way, it isn't, it is too susceptible to all types of fraud and <br />
<br />
manipulation! And there is absolutely no discussion on the huge, and <br />
<br />
growing, problem of clutter. Whether it's emerging digital platforms or the <br />
<br />
nooks and crannies in an ever-increasing buyable physical world from <br />
<br />
dry-cleaning bags, coffee cups, door hangers and even houses. The simple fact of the matter is that <br />
<br />
clutter is leading to more clutter . <br />
<br />
So if clutter is such a problem, why isn't there a clear, unified way of thinking out a way to reduce <br />
<br />
it? And that perhaps is where a good debate and discussion within the Marketing and Media press <br />
<br />
could contribute, but no, no critics within the trade have emerged to courageously <br />
<br />
tackle this huge and growing problem! Added to which is the headlong, <br />
<br />
unquestioning rush into all forms of new media. Like, for example cellphone <br />
<br />
advertising. A much more critical stance would have questioned the very <br />
<br />
thought of advertising on mobile telephones. Now the obvious has been <br />
<br />
confirmed, marketers' new-found fondness for cellphone advertising is not an <br />
<br />
enthusiasm universally shared by consumers. When 4,000 adults were <br />
<br />
asked about different forms of mobile phone ads the overwhelming majority of respondents found <br />
<br />
them "not acceptable at all"! "My new gizmo has gone up in smoke but I can't face <br />
<br />
ringing yet another call centre" that was the headline in the Times of <br />
<br />
London, as if in vindication of what I am trying to say here. "Customer <br />
<br />
satisfaction plumbs the depths as a survey suggests that we are fed up with poor services" <br />
<br />
states the Times. I can guarantee that there will be no <br />
<br />
discussion/debate/criticism of that little article in the trade press!<br />
</span><br /></span><br /></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-66989685272641994162013-03-06T06:35:00.000-08:002013-03-06T06:35:12.532-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang=""><h2 align="CENTER">
<u>Why do People need to Interact?</u></h2>
</span><u><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></u><span style="font-size: medium;">
<span lang="EN-GB"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">People respond to interactive opportunities because it seems to offer some intangible quality long ‘missing in action’ from modern life. In sharp contrast to the alienation wrought by homogenised broadcast media, interactive opportunities provide a space in which the human voice would be rapidly rediscovered.<br />
<br />
Unlike the lockstep conformity imposed by television, advertising, and corporate propaganda, interactive communication gives new legitimacy – and free rein – to play.<br />
<br />
People long for more connection between what we do for a living and what we genuinely care about. We long for release from anonymity, to be seen as who we feel ourselves to be rather than the sum of abstract metrics and parameters. <br />
<br />
We long to be part of a world that makes sense rather than accept the accidental alienation imposed by market forces too large to grasp; to even contemplate</span><span style="font-size: small;">.</span><span style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: small;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Courier New; font-size: small;">
</span></span><b><i><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i><span style="font-size: medium;">Would you like to discover more about how effective interactive communication is? Then simply contact Paul Ashby @ paulashby40@yahoo.com or (UK) 01934 620047 and please feel free to discuss any aspect of Interactive Communication.</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></i><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-36306301801439004952013-03-06T00:53:00.000-08:002013-03-06T00:53:48.827-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;"><div align="CENTER">
Do you agree with Mad Ave's 16-car pileup?</div>
</span><div align="CENTER">
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></u><br /></b><u><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
Clutter's not the only issue -- things like media multitasking and ad-skipping devices play roles. But it is the elephant in the room. Or maybe a more apt metaphor is a 16-car pileup that Madison Avenue's perfectly happy to rubberneck: pause just enough to recognise its existence without doing anything to fix it. <br />
<br />
"We could discuss any topic in media and there would some room for debate," said Debbie Solomon, group research director at WPP Group's MindShare, and the author of the agency's annual study on increased commercial time in TV. "But not with clutter. Every study I've ever seen shows that it's a bad thing." <br />
<br />
So if clutter's such a problem, why isn't there a clear, unified way of figuring out how to reduce it? A big reason is that clutter is usually viewed through the lenses of individual media, a way of looking that makes a bit of sense given that clutter affects each medium differently. <br />
<br />
Research shows that a magazine reader looks at glossy ad pages rather favorably, as part of the editorial content, while a TV viewer is more likely to see 30-second spots as interruptions. Between those poles of acceptance and revulsion fall internet users, who are simultaneously hit with both scads of generic, untargeted ads and more finely tuned pitches that take into account behavior that gives some semblance of relevance to advertising. <br />
<br />
Refocus on consumer, not media <br />
A siloed way of thinking is fine if you're atop a media company or a trade association, but it falls short if managing a massive marketing budget is your bag. That lens effectively needs to be refocused not on media but on the consumer, who's cumulatively bludgeoned by commercial messages as he moves from medium to medium. "We just don't have a holistic approach yet," Mr. Barocci said. <br />
<br />
Asked whether a more consumer-centric approach to clutter is needed, Bob Liodice, president-CEO at the Association of National Advertisers, said such an initiative "would have to be like what's going on with engagement," referring to a joint effort by his organization, the 4A's and the ARF to develop a new standard for measuring ad effectiveness. "That's something that seems to have universal support and intrigue. Ad clutter hasn't yet risen to that level. I don't want to dismiss it, though. The consumer is running away from some advertising." <br />
<br />
Kate Sirkin, exec VP-global research director at Publicis Groupe's Starcom, said she's not counting on action from media companies, for whom clutter raises complicated questions of economics. "Media companies and associations won't look at it because they don't think in a multimedia way," she said. "It'll be up to advertisers to deal with."</span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-36592150113705123752013-03-05T06:09:00.000-08:002013-03-05T06:09:08.214-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<u>Do you think that Media Pollution Is Worsening Despite Cleanup Efforts? </u></h2>
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>
</b></span><b><br /></b><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><br />
<br />
<br />
Somewhere between 254 and 5,000 is a number that represents just how many commercial messages an average consumer gets each day. Attempts to beat clutter only end up yielding more of it, a bitter irony bound to have dire consequences for a business already struggling with questions of relevance and effectiveness. <br />
Attempts to beat clutter only end up yielding more of it, a bitter irony bound to have dire consequences for a business already struggling with questions of relevance and effectiveness. <br />
There's no consensus on it, but just about everyone agrees on two things: It's way too high, and the industry's not doing anything to reduce its own overproduction. <br />
<br />
That's our clutter problem -- and yours. <br />
<br />
Shotgun blasts <br />
Like a fly repeatedly bouncing off a closed window, the ad industry is trying to fix the problem by doing more of the same. That is, by creating more ads. What that absurdly cliched mission statement of "cutting through the clutter" has really yielded is an industry that shotgun blasts commercial messages into sexy new places as quick as it can identify them, whether it's emerging digital platforms or nooks and crannies in an increasingly buyable physical world -- dry-cleaning bags, coffee cups, door hangers and even houses. Yes, clutter is leading to more clutter. <br />
<br />
But, you say, at least it's paring back on traditional media, right? Actually, TV commercial pods are fatter than they've ever been, and they're growing like a 14-year-old Xbox fan's waistline. <br />
<br />
Attempts to beat clutter only end up yielding more of it, a bitter irony bound to have dire consequences for a business already struggling with questions of relevance and effectiveness. Put simply, the ad business is crushing itself under the weight of its own messaging, squeezing the effectiveness out of its product as consumers get more and more inured to the commercialisation of their culture and surroundings. <br />
<br />
"At the end of the day, the ability of the average consumer to even remember advertising 24 hours later is at the lowest level in the history of our business," said Bob Barocci, president-CEO of the Advertising Research Foundation. "We know that something's happened and we know the contributors."<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span lang=""></span></span></span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-42678559324953984102013-03-05T00:46:00.000-08:002013-03-05T00:46:28.929-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang=""><h2 align="CENTER">
<u>Do You Think that Advertising is Really Effective?</u></h2>
</span><span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-size: small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Our 21st century lives have been bombarded, blurred and overkilled with <br />
<br />
advertising on TV, movies, radio, internet, magazines, newspapers, airplanes, <br />
<br />
and even on the elevators up to our offices. The myriad of mixed advertising <br />
<br />
messages that have infiltrated and controlled our down time has given most <br />
<br />
consumers a huge headache and a diminished belief system. So, does traditional <br />
<br />
advertising work today? Here are some serious stats that we just can't deny.<br />
<br />
Consumer skepticism and a resistance to advertising are apparent in todays <br />
<br />
marketplace. According to Insight Express, consumer trust in advertising has <br />
<br />
plunged 41% over the past three years and only 10% of consumers say they trust <br />
<br />
ads today.<br />
<br />
In the varied world of todays media, the consumer is increasingly in <br />
<br />
control. A recent study by Yankelovich, Inc. revealed that nearly 70% of consumers <br />
<br />
were actively looking for ways to block, opt-out, or eliminate advertising.<br />
<br />
Media fragmentation is out of control the average household today has over <br />
<br />
100 television choices.<br />
<br />
Given these facts, the pressure is on to improve targeting to your interested <br />
<br />
market to achieve advertising relevance and to minimize your waste of <br />
<br />
advertising that misses the mark. Therefore, todays successful marketers are <br />
<br />
held to new levels of accountability and they have to prove the advertising is <br />
<br />
working.<br />
</span><br /></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-17258736656061156302013-03-03T07:58:00.000-08:002013-03-03T07:58:45.575-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang=""><h2 align="CENTER">
<u>As an advertising medium....</u></h2>
</span><u><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span></u><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: x-large;">
</span></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"> ....the web is like communism. It's never very good right now, but it's always going to be great some day."</span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-7997912552927644662013-03-03T01:13:00.000-08:002013-03-03T01:13:39.418-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang=""><h2 align="CENTER">
<u>Do you think that The dangers facing advertising and marketing are many and complex?</u></h2>
</span><u><span style="font-size: large;"><div align="CENTER">
<br /></div>
</span></u><span style="font-size: large;"><div align="CENTER">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="CENTER">
, </div>
<br />
however we have to stop and stand back and re-examine the whole process of commercial <br />
<br />
communication for the practitioners have lost sight of what we are supposed to <br />
<br />
do. It is true that Marketing inertia is causing so many problems, together with <br />
<br />
the fact that they will not face up to the unpalatable truth that the whole <br />
<br />
process is just not working these days. The situation is so bad that any attempt <br />
<br />
to mount an argument for reform gets buried in the old narrative of "advertising <br />
<br />
works"! <br />
<br />
Well the fact is that the era of getting rid of big advertising agencies and cutting wasteful <br />
<br />
expenditure is upon us. After all we've had years of ever increasing marketing budgets and <br />
<br />
throwing huge amounts of money at media has resulted in clutter and unaccountability. <br />
<br />
Advertising in its current form must come to an end, not just because the money has run out, <br />
<br />
but it is also shown to have failed! Although it must be said that Advertising and Marketing <br />
<br />
are not the only scenes of gross wastage and mismanagement.<br />
<br />
One can liken the current Advertising scene to an unstable Ponzi scheme. <br />
<br />
Advertising and Marketing departments promised higher benefits than were <br />
<br />
justified by the money being allocated to pay for them as in the swindle known <br />
<br />
as a Ponzi scheme. The fact that advertising doesn't work makes all this <br />
<br />
expenditure unsustainable right now!<br />
<br />
There is an urgent need, like "Right Now" to overcome the hostility to big <br />
<br />
business generally, the normal cosy relationships must not be allowed to resume. <br />
<br />
The flawed policy-making in Marketing departments, without a doubt the Saatchi <br />
<br />
brothers are responsible for the over rated benefits on spending (wasting?) huge <br />
<br />
amounts of money on advertising! They were the most incompetent advertising <br />
<br />
people in the history of advertising! The Saatchi Brothers encouraged the <br />
<br />
slavish adherence to rational expectations stemming from the Creative Process, <br />
<br />
and yet all knew that slavish belief in Creativity alone is fatal!<br />
<br />
Where should we go from here? A huge and daunting question. Advertising <br />
<br />
Agencies must learn the theory of "communication" they must also try, in all <br />
<br />
honesty, to become totally accountable, it can be done.<br />
</div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-50495327340132406232013-03-02T03:10:00.001-08:002013-03-02T03:10:40.213-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang="">
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"> <br />
</span><br /></span><b><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"></span></span></u></b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><div align="CENTER">
Communication research shows that interaction raises a communication's effectiveness.</div>
</span><br /></span><br /></u><br /></b><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"></span></span></u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">During all our research one constant shone through, that is that marketing is <br />
<br />
conversations.<br />
<br />
Current conventional mass media are weak conductors of knowledge and <br />
<br />
comprehension. This is because of a number of factors, however the main reason <br />
<br />
is; they are non-interactive communications vehicles, in other words <br />
<br />
conversations cannot take place. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The one problem facing interactive advertising is the fact that it has become <br />
<br />
a cliche in recent years, without any very clear or consistent definition of <br />
<br />
what the word means or how it is supposed to work.<br />
<br />
Properly executed it has none of the woolly theorising that lies behind the <br />
<br />
arguments about various forms of so-called interactive communication using <br />
<br />
direct marketing and electronic media (most of which involves at best the <br />
<br />
minimum of true interactivity). <br />
<br />
It is also practical, down-to-earth, and uses a readily comprehensible and <br />
<br />
verified mechanism to expand the relevance and salience of advertising and <br />
<br />
other forms of marketing communications. It can be applied to all major media <br />
<br />
and to various other forms of communication, including new media. There is <br />
<br />
no theoretical reason why it should not also be applied to packaging designs or <br />
<br />
product literature.<br />
<br />
The basic elements of interactive communication are very simple, as all <br />
<br />
communication should be. The audience or any part of them are provided <br />
<br />
with a Game, comprising a Quiz together with multiple choice answers. <br />
<br />
This take the reader/viewer through the detail of a commercial or <br />
<br />
advertisement and focuses their interest and attention on the products selling <br />
<br />
points. The questionnaire is (usually) presented as an exercise<br />
<br />
in getting the publics opinions about the products. The effect is to combine <br />
<br />
the techniques of programmed learning and game playing to fix the advertising <br />
<br />
message in consumers minds.<br />
<br />
In the face of growing clutter of advertising messages and the increasing <br />
<br />
ability of consumers to screen out unwanted commercials and ads., there is also <br />
<br />
a growing problem for advertisers in breaking through the surrounding noise.<br />
<br />
By presenting advertisements in the form of a Game it alters the consumers <br />
<br />
perception to the content making the communication process far more effective, <br />
<br />
by providing an enjoyable mechanism for consumers to become involved with<br />
<br />
the brand and its advertising message. <br />
<br />
This meets the desire, evident among consumers, to open up a dialogue with <br />
<br />
at least some of the manufacturers or service companies whose products they <br />
<br />
buy; and also feeds consumers evident wish to be better informed about what it <br />
<br />
is they are being asked to buy.<br />
<br />
By getting consumers to make a commitment to finding out more about an <br />
<br />
advertisers offer, the interactive technique can create the conditions for <br />
<br />
positive attitudes towards the advertiser and positive learning about the product <br />
<br />
advertised.<br />
<br />
In addition to providing this encouragement for consumers to focus on the <br />
<br />
brand and to develop for themselves the steps of the argument that should <br />
<br />
lead to a purchase the technique can provide the advertiser with valuable <br />
<br />
feedback about both the product and its advertising. This is a dialogue that <br />
<br />
can benefit both sides, and be seen to be doing so.<br />
<br />
By its very nature, the technique is totally accountable, so much so that it <br />
<br />
is, without a doubt the most heavily research concept in the history of <br />
<br />
marketing communication. <br />
<br />
Many of the worlds largest independent research companies have measured the <br />
<br />
incremental increases that just one exposure to an interactive programme can <br />
<br />
bring.</span></span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-84154662930997594342013-03-01T03:17:00.000-08:002013-03-01T03:17:50.189-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang=""><h2 align="CENTER">
<u>What do you think is lacking in the advertising world of to-day?</u></h2>
</span><u><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u><span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">Mainly we appear to lack ideas, strong ideas, competing ideas, confident <br />
<br />
philosophies, angry dissent. Advertising people used to have ideas &<br />
<br />
policies; they jostled to present their ideas. But what is alarming is <br />
<br />
the impassivity of our advertising people & the idleness of advertising <br />
<br />
debate, as we wait. There is a sense of vacuum.<br />
<br />
Where to-day is the bold advocacy, the impatience to persuade, the urgency of <br />
<br />
argument? Where are the shouts of "here's how!"? Where are the leading <br />
<br />
actors, the big voices, the great thoughts?<br />
<br />
Headlines about "Twitter", the Internet, "Facebook" et al, are these now the<br />
<br />
only images we have of a once great advertising industry?<br />
<br />
But perhaps the problem is simpler but just as scary, in a headline " Lack of <br />
<br />
experience affects business" the Institute of Advertising had this to say, "The <br />
<br />
nature of the business is such that in order to be cost efficient process gets <br />
<br />
dumbed down and farmed out to more junior people. There is a tendency to <br />
<br />
commodity and that can lead to work being de-skilled".<br />
<br />
So there you have it technology and a dumbing down are affecting all aspect <br />
<br />
of advertising...it is time to change or else advertising will become like the <br />
<br />
Zimbabwe bird flying around in ever decreasing circles until it disappears up <br />
<br />
its own orifice! </span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-24068038687068982582013-02-28T01:48:00.001-08:002013-02-28T01:48:08.743-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;"><div align="CENTER">
Do you agree that As More Power Shifts to Consumers the Need Grows For 'Renaissance Marketers'?</div>
</span><br /></u><br /></b><u><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u><span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><div align="CENTER">
</div>
<br />
Together with a deeper understanding of Interactive Marketing <br />
<br />
Communication. <br />
<br />
Interactive marketing communications isn't new, but it's gaining momentum as <br />
<br />
power shifts from the marketer to the consumer and as marketers recognize the <br />
<br />
power and efficiency of taking a integrated approach to engaging consumers.<br />
<br />
Several studies indicate that achieving effective Interactive Marketing <br />
<br />
Communication campaigns is marketers' primary concern, one research study <br />
<br />
indicated that, properly executed, interactive marketing is considerably more <br />
<br />
effective allowing a Client to half his current advertising budget and be, at <br />
<br />
least, 50% more effective.<br />
<br />
"COST EFFECTIVENESS: Professor E.L. Roberto, PhD, Coca-Cola <br />
<br />
Foundation Professor of International Marketing reviewed the £5 million of <br />
<br />
independent research conducted on behalf of Interactive communication and <br />
<br />
provided this summary as to the techniques cost efficiency:<br />
<br />
"The Interactive "Event(s)" participating brands generated recall scores that <br />
<br />
are more than 50% productive than normal advertising. The effect on purchase <br />
<br />
intention is just as impressive if not much more.<br />
<br />
All these productivity increments are attainable at a reasonably inexpensive <br />
<br />
budget. One Client revealed that for its participating brand, its quarter <br />
<br />
television expenditure was $5.7 million as compared to its interactive budget <br />
<br />
of $0.5 million. This 1:10 ratio has been obtained in Interactive experience <br />
<br />
in other countries."<br />
<br />
However there is considerable uncertainty about how to staff, design, manage <br />
<br />
and measure the success of such programs.<br />
<br />
For too long, marketing functions have been vertically organized by media<br />
<br />
type. This approach is mirrored on the agency side, with class rewards based<br />
<br />
on discipline-specific P&L models. These must be torn down.<br />
<br />
On the client-side Marketing and Brand Managers must involve and lead a <br />
<br />
team of colleagues who have the responsibility, vision, understanding and <br />
<br />
commitment to engage in a media-agnostic planning process. And this team of <br />
<br />
enlightened marketers must be willing to let strategic goals -- not historic <br />
<br />
patterns -- drive budget allocations.<br />
<br />
Achieving strategic integration requires a top-to-bottom reinvention of the <br />
<br />
marketing organization. This transformation must be led by holistic <br />
<br />
professionals who are system thinkers, customer-centric believers, innovators <br />
<br />
and dreamers.<br />
<br />
These individuals should be cross-trained to understand the entire marketing <br />
<br />
spectrum and learn discipline-specific skill sets. And to specifically <br />
<br />
understand the real meaning of the word "communication" Increasingly, these <br />
<br />
leaders will need strong quantitative skills -- in order to analyze the <br />
<br />
data-rich resources and leverage mathematical tools now available, especially <br />
<br />
if they are to drive cross-disciplinary approaches that fuse disparate <br />
<br />
consumer-engagement channels. Above all, they need to be superior team <br />
<br />
leaders who have the insights, talent and passion to take marketing integration <br />
<br />
to new heights.<br />
<br />
Engaging in conversations with relevant markets (Interacting) will become an <br />
<br />
important source of knowledge and innovation, the quality of this market <br />
<br />
intelligence has already (and will do so more in the future) proven to be more <br />
<br />
accurate than research and will determine market share.<br />
<br />
Without interactive communication your efforts to create new products and <br />
<br />
markets will be taking place in a vacuum.<br />
</span>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span lang=""></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"> </span></span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-66085677488820208262013-02-27T00:36:00.000-08:002013-02-27T00:36:07.223-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang=""><h2 align="CENTER">
<u>Do you think that on-line ads work?</u></h2>
</span><u><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u><span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">Quick, name the last two online advertisements you've seen.<br />
<br />
Too hard? O.K., name the last online advertisement you clicked on. (I mean <br />
<br />
intentionally, not because it slipped under your cursor while you browsed <br />
<br />
People.com.)<br />
<br />
Can't think of anything? Being able to tune out ads might make your <br />
<br />
Web-browsing more enjoyable, but it's a dilemma for online advertisers <br />
<br />
struggling to find niches in the cluttered columns of their Web pages.<br />
<br />
Online ads are fighting for air on the forest floor of the Internet, where <br />
<br />
Flash images and written content soak up reader attention. Those rough <br />
<br />
conditions have encouraged wide experimentation, with limited results. For <br />
<br />
example, one innovation called the click-to-pay method only charges <br />
<br />
advertisers when browsers click on their icon. But click-to-pay can be<br />
<br />
expensive as much as $2 per hit and up to 50% of clicks are unintentional or <br />
<br />
even fraudulent.<br />
<br />
To be fair, online advertising has some advantages. Web sites have <br />
<br />
extraordinary access to consumers, tracking clicking behavior and reader <br />
<br />
attention-span to sharpen their ad target. Googles AdSense has been at the <br />
<br />
vanguard of these reforms. But its contextual advertisements, which use keywords <br />
<br />
to generate ad placement, can yield both accurate and absurd results. For <br />
<br />
example, a Google search for Eliot Spitzer generates sidebar ads for The New <br />
<br />
York Times (which broke the original story about the Governors scandal) <br />
<br />
and Client T-shirts.<br />
<br />
Contextual advertising makes search engines look like gold mines to ad <br />
<br />
companies, but they're also raking in consumer ire and privacy concerns. The <br />
<br />
backlash comes from browsers who think the data-mining and keyword-spying <br />
<br />
constitute privacy violations. This has executives worrying that their <br />
<br />
strength, easy access to consumer patterns and preferences could also be a <br />
<br />
weakness if the counterattack has teeth.<br />
<br />
None of this means online ads are entirely doomed. The technology is <br />
<br />
improving and ad companies are learning how to target consumers better. But <br />
<br />
online ads won't pay until they learn how to make us pay attention</span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-85027631354106770382013-02-27T00:31:00.000-08:002013-02-27T00:31:56.679-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang=""><h2 style="text-align: center;">
<u>Do you think that on-line ads work?</u></h2>
</span><u><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u><span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">Quick, name the last two online advertisements you've seen.<br />
<br />
Too hard? O.K., name the last online advertisement you clicked on. (I mean <br />
<br />
intentionally, not because it slipped under your cursor while you browsed <br />
<br />
People.com.)<br />
<br />
Can't think of anything? Being able to tune out ads might make your <br />
<br />
Web-browsing more enjoyable, but it's a dilemma for online advertisers <br />
<br />
struggling to find niches in the cluttered columns of their Web pages.<br />
<br />
Online ads are fighting for air on the forest floor of the Internet, where <br />
<br />
Flash images and written content soak up reader attention. Those rough <br />
<br />
conditions have encouraged wide experimentation, with limited results. For <br />
<br />
example, one innovation called the click-to-pay method only charges <br />
<br />
advertisers when browsers click on their icon. But click-to-pay can be<br />
<br />
expensive as much as $2 per hit and up to 50% of clicks are unintentional or <br />
<br />
even fraudulent.<br />
<br />
To be fair, online advertising has some advantages. Web sites have <br />
<br />
extraordinary access to consumers, tracking clicking behavior and reader <br />
<br />
attention-span to sharpen their ad target. Googles AdSense has been at the <br />
<br />
vanguard of these reforms. But its contextual advertisements, which use keywords <br />
<br />
to generate ad placement, can yield both accurate and absurd results. For <br />
<br />
example, a Google search for Eliot Spitzer generates sidebar ads for The New <br />
<br />
York Times (which broke the original story about the Governors scandal) <br />
<br />
and Client T-shirts.<br />
<br />
Contextual advertising makes search engines look like gold mines to ad <br />
<br />
companies, but they're also raking in consumer ire and privacy concerns. The <br />
<br />
backlash comes from browsers who think the data-mining and keyword-spying <br />
<br />
constitute privacy violations. This has executives worrying that their <br />
<br />
strength, easy access to consumer patterns and preferences could also be a <br />
<br />
weakness if the counterattack has teeth.<br />
<br />
None of this means online ads are entirely doomed. The technology is <br />
<br />
improving and ad companies are learning how to target consumers better. But <br />
<br />
online ads won't pay until they learn how to make us pay attention</span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-36406033798709088212013-02-26T07:11:00.000-08:002013-02-26T07:11:02.245-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 align="CENTER">
<u>Do you agree that the function of effective interactive communication is to accurately convey a particular message?</u></h2>
<h2>
<u>
</u></h2>
that is clear and comprehended by the receiver. Communication is used to express emotion, transfer information or provide direction. The function of effective interactive communication can be best seen in the business world. If a company is able to effectively communicate with its workers, the workers will feel empowered, informed and appreciated.<br />
<br />
Interactive communication is divided into two forms: verbal and nonverbal. Verbal and nonverbal communication must agree or else it can lead to confusion or misunderstanding. For example, if a boss verbally communicates you're doing a good job and then fires you the next day, there's an obvious breakdown in the communication. Nonverbal communication is gestures, vocal tone and facial expressions.<br />
<br />
The effects of effective interactive communication are understanding, education, empowerment and respect. <b><i><u>Effective communication provides people with information they need to become educated and enlightened</u></i></b><i><u></u></i><u></u>. <br />
<br />
When people feel like they are in the know, they feel respected and empowered, and are motivated to perform at their best level of productivity and performance. The role that effective communication plays can have a positive or negative affect. For example, in politics if a politician doesn't explain himself or herself clearly, there can be a lot of room The primary misconception about effective interactive communication is that it is simply saying what a person feels.<br />
<br />
Simply expressing ideas, thoughts and emotions does not make communication effective. Effective interactive communication can only be considered effective when the listener accurately understands the message the individual is attempting to communicate. The role of effective communication is commonly seen only as the messages being sent, while it is both the sending and receiving that matter.<br />
<br />
The benefits of effective interactive communication are successful business, rich relationships and the ability to accurately and comprehensively express thoughts, feelings and ideas. Effective communication is at the foundation of every successful action. A great example of how the role of effective communication benefits people in interpersonal relationship is marriage. A marriage that possesses effective interactive communication fosters love, trust and respect.<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span lang=""></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"> </span></span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-72817657831306118262013-02-25T10:45:00.000-08:002013-02-25T10:45:06.113-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang="">
</span><b><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"></span></span></u></b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"></span></span></u></b><h2 align="CENTER">
<u>What is effective communication?</u></h2>
<b><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">
</span><br /></span><br /></u><br /></b><u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"></span></span></u><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"></span></span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Communication is best summarized as the transmission of a message from a <br />
<br />
sender to a receiver in an understandable manner. <b><i><u>The importance of effective </u></i></b><br />
<b><i><u>
</u></i></b><br />
<b><i><u>communication is immeasurable in the world of business and in personal life. <br />
</u><br /></i><br /></b><i><u></u></i><u></u><br />
From a business perspective, effective communication is an absolute must, it<br />
<br />
commonly accounts for the difference between success and failure.<br />
<br />
It has become clear that effective business communication is <br />
<br />
critical to the successful operation of modern enterprise. Every business person <br />
<br />
needs to understand the fundamentals of effective communication.<br />
<br />
Poor communication reduces quality, weakens productivity, and eventually <br />
<br />
leads to anger and a lack of trust among individuals within the organization.<br />
<br />
The communication process is made up of four key components.<b><i><u> These </u></i></b><br />
<b><i><u>
</u></i></b><br />
<b><i><u>components include encoding, medium of transmission, decoding, and <br />
<br />
feedback</u></i></b><i><u><br /></u></i><u><br /></u>. There are also two other factors in the process, and those two factors <br />
<br />
are present in the form of the sender and the receiver. The communication <br />
<br />
process begins with the sender and ends with the receiver. Successfull <br />
<br />
communication takes place when the receiver correctly interprets (and then <br />
<br />
interacts) with the sender's message.<br />
<br />
The extent to which a person comprehends the message will depend<br />
<br />
on a number of factors, which include the following: how much the individual <br />
<br />
or individuals know about the topic, their receptivity to the message, and the <br />
<br />
relationship and trust that exists between sender and receiver. All <br />
<br />
interpretations by the receiver are influenced by their experiences, attitudes, <br />
<br />
knowledge, skills, perceptions, and culture. It is similar to the sender's <br />
<br />
relationship with encoding.<br />
<br />
Feedback is the final link in the chain of the communication process. After <br />
<br />
receiving a message, the receiver responds in some way and signals that<br />
<br />
response to the sender. The signal may take the form of a spoken comment, a <br />
<br />
long sigh, a written message, a smile, or some other action. <br />
<b><i><u></u></i></b><br />
<b><i><u>Without feedback, the sender cannot effectively communication.</u></i></b><i><u><br /></u></i><u><br /></u> <br />
<i><u></u></i><br />
<i><u>Feedback is a key component in the communication process because it allows <br />
<br />
the sender to evaluate the effectiveness of the message. "Feedback plays an <br />
<br />
important role by indicating significant communication barriers: differences in <br />
<br />
background, different nterpretations of words, and differing emotional <br />
<br />
reactions" <br />
</u><br /></i><u></u><br />
When followed properly, communication can usually assure that <br />
<br />
the sender's message will be understood. Certain barriers<br />
<br />
present themselves throughout the process. Those barriers are factors that have<br />
<br />
a negative impact on the communication process. Some common barriers<br />
<br />
include the use of an inappropriate medium (channel), incorrect grammar, <br />
<br />
inflammatory words,words that conflict with body language, and technical <br />
<br />
jargon. Noise is also another common barrier. Noise can occur during any stage<br />
<br />
of the process. <br />
<br />
Noise essentially is anything that distorts a message by interfering with the <br />
<br />
communication process. Noise can take many forms, including a radio playing <br />
<br />
in the background, another person trying to enter your conversation, multiple <br />
<br />
other distractions!</span></span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-509965731798784762.post-61112333094310152122013-02-24T00:51:00.000-08:002013-02-24T00:51:14.942-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<u>Does Marketing Have a Heart of Darkness?</u></h2>
<span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>
<br />
<br />
</b></u></span><u><b><br /></b></u><b><br /></b><u><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> <br />
<br />
The orthodox advertising model takes no account of reality, hopefully the Financial Crisis should bring back some sanity One of the few benign consequences of last years financial crisis was the exposure of modern marketing as an emperor with no clothes. Now it is a fact that modern marketing/advertising has to be urgently reinvented.<br />
<br />
This could lead to a flowering of original thinking in a profession whose creativity has been stifled by the intellectual monopoly of orthodox advertising and marketing bodies. The dirty little secret of modern advertising is that the models created by media and advertising agencies said almost nothing about accountability.<br />
<br />
The defunct advertising and marketing bodies today are the people who took control of the subject in the 1960s, with theories about the effectiveness of advertising.<br />
<br />
These theories, never really tested with reality, had a major flaw, if reality contradicts these theories it was reality that marketing & advertising professionals wanted to change. It is not surprising that the whole marketing edifice has come crashing down. To-days approach prevented marketing professionals from thinking about a world that is, by its very nature, unpredictable and inconsistent.<br />
<br />
Why did Marketing fail to predict the crisis. It is said they failed because they all had a flawed view about markets! To gain some genuine understanding of unpredictable communications marketing and advertising people will, first of all, have to understand the real meaning of the word "communications." Perhaps they don't really want to!<br />
<br />
The formula of reach and frequency is a thoroughly dishonest formula, based upon the need to rip as much money off Clients with complete disregard to accountability. There have been far more effective methods of marketing, however because these achieved startling results with a substantial reduction in advertising budgets they were dammed by faint praise and shuffled off out of sight before Clients could be woken up to the fact that they were being, simply put, ripped off!<br />
<br />
Advertising has encouraged the growth of the sick & degrading culture of celebrity in the quite erroneous understanding that circulation is one of the key elements within the charade called advertising. In an article "Admen to tackle mistrust" the Advertising Association is to urge members to fight back against waning consumer trust in advertising, which is another example of the complete lack of understanding on the part of the Advertising Industry of the communications process and individuals complete lack of interest in advertising. <br />
<br />
In a survey it was established that only 15% of adults "generally trust advertising" Frankly I am surprised that it is so high.<br />
<br />
Consider this, the strength of newspapers to markedly affect the outcome of elections is severely doubted, if editorial strength support cannot markedly affect political outcome just how can we expect advertising to have any effect! Especially if adults "don't trust advertising", add to that fact that right now they also don't trust politicians and surely we could find a better way to spent the vast sums invested in political advertising!The fact is that in all walks of life the "system", despite the original intention and rules, always becomes corrupted by its users and lazy administrators, advertising has become so corrupted and is in the process of corrupting the New Media as they have corrupted the Old Media!<br />
<br />
Of course there is a tacit agreement to keep the current inefficient system going for as long as possible. The vast sums of money spent on advertising go towards making a few people very rich indeed, in the past, Media Barons created media to gain power, nowadays the reason for creating new media, in whatever form, is no longer a route to power, it has become a route to vast riches and never mind the quality of media hence the "dumbing down of all media" in recent years.<br />
<br />
Don't agree with what I'm saying? Well then consider this little shard of information. As much as 60% of all tracked advertising expenditure world-wide during 2008 failed to deliver results expected by marketers and can be considered wasted. $70bn alone is spent in the USA on advertising extrapolate that out to world-wide and that becomes a hell of a huge waste of money.</span></div>
Paul Ashbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09009584445070869520noreply@blogger.com0