Are you looking to engage the voices of consumers with your brands?

　


Help your Clients Face the Challenge of Innovation



Clients need solutions that allow their brands to engage with their consumers

and get the results they need to move their marketing strategy forward.

Interactive marketing communication is the key to helping clients innovate.

A year after first asking the question above, the answer is still "No." Too

many agencies still are not making themselves an integral part of the new

reality. As the world becomes more digitally connected, we should celebrate the

fact that marketing and advertising ideas are coming from everywhere. For me,

it's inspiring to see the radical evolution of an industry and watch individuals

take control of a once-closed society made up of Mad Men. The new world can

be scary for people who still work in the old model. We get that. Change is

scary.

But it's also a reality.

Part of that reality is the fact that Advertising ignores communication theory.

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.

Lack of communication competence.


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.

Advertisements are more carefully prepared because gatekeepers (those who

prepare and send out messages) are more cautious about what they say to large

audiences than they are to audiences of one or a few, they check their facts

more carefully and they prepare their syntax and vocabulary more precisely.

And yet, because their audience contributes much less feedback, the source

cannot correct for any lapse or understanding, so people are more likely to

misinterpret what they hear or read over the mass media.

The need for Interactive Marketing Communication.


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.

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.


　

Are you doing anything about Swinging back the web clutter?

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."

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."

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.

"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."

　

　

　

Are We becoming more and more distracted by the various media that continues to proliferate under advertising's largess?




As advertisers spend more, they extend media's restless tentacles, thus

distracting us to the point where marketers have to spend yet more to regain our

attention (if they ever had it in the first place!)

All the mounting evidence that advertising doesn't work goes totally ignored.

Recently it was written that most marketing (theory and practice) is wish

driven. The work on advertising effectiveness convincingly proves that there is

no evidence that advertising persuades anybody to do anything; advertising can

only be a 'weak' force.

The sad thing is that all this evidence is studiously ignored by many

sections of the marketing community, resulting in the terrible situation we are

witnessing to-day. Many goals set in marketing are unrealistic. They are

therefore doomed to failure from the start. Such romantic marketing dreams

include sustained growth, brand differentiation, persuasive advertising, and are

totally unrealistic!

Now, in addition, we have the craven-image of dotcom dementia 2.0

The problem is that the articles of faith among those who conquered their

fear, denial, blind faith and desperate attachments to the status quo

("Advertising works") now face the gathering reality of the chaos scenario! With

most advertising these days where is one iota of information which will

sell?

Mostly they don't tell consumers anything that matters, instead leaving that

heavy lifting to other, less sexy marketing efforts

Do You agree that Once Upon a Time…?

We had the likes of Leo Burnett, David Ogilvy et al. And they were the

keepers of the flame of advertising. Nowadays no aspect of advertising

is as badly served as advertising itself. Where to day are the advertising

voices that ring out as intelligent, passionate, current, and, more importantly,

critical of current advertising practices?

Can you, for one moment, even imagine David Ogilvy not giving sarcastic comment to some of what

passes for advertising these days , especially the use of the new technology?

Once upon a time we had an excellent heritage of critical

writing on advertising. Unfortunately to day no one speaks with any authority

either for or against advertising. In our current trade press the

lexicon of adjectives used by critics of advertising is zilch, nada,nothing!

Even worse, the banality of what passes for intelligent commentary on all

aspects of marketing/advertising is simply that , banal! The current

crop of writers have forgotten that their first calling is to write readable,

intelligent and amusing articles. Because like everything else advertising needs

strong criticism, it needs that to keep advertising strong and innovative. Bad

advertising, and there happens to be a lot of it around these days, drives out

good advertising unless there is someone there to stop it. The current

crop of writers and what they have to say about advertising is growing in

irrelevance. Sometimes I feel that, when reading the marketing/advertising press

that they have no idea who they are writing for. Sadly, a myopic tunnel vision

is bought to bear on the subject currently in vogue , in this instance Web

2.0. However what is really worrying is the fact that, in the instance

of Web 2.0, there is no debate as to the suitability of Web 2.0 as an

advertising medium, there is no debate as to the claims of it being accountable.

Which, by the way, it isn't, it is too susceptible to all types of fraud and

manipulation! And there is absolutely no discussion on the huge, and

growing, problem of clutter. Whether it's emerging digital platforms or the

nooks and crannies in an ever-increasing buyable physical world from

dry-cleaning bags, coffee cups, door hangers and even houses. The simple fact of the matter is that

clutter is leading to more clutter .

So if clutter is such a problem, why isn't there a clear, unified way of thinking out a way to reduce

it? And that perhaps is where a good debate and discussion within the Marketing and Media press

could contribute, but no, no critics within the trade have emerged to courageously

tackle this huge and growing problem! Added to which is the headlong,

unquestioning rush into all forms of new media. Like, for example cellphone

advertising. A much more critical stance would have questioned the very

thought of advertising on mobile telephones. Now the obvious has been

confirmed, marketers' new-found fondness for cellphone advertising is not an

enthusiasm universally shared by consumers. When 4,000 adults were

asked about different forms of mobile phone ads the overwhelming majority of respondents found

them "not acceptable at all"! "My new gizmo has gone up in smoke but I can't face

ringing yet another call centre" that was the headline in the Times of

London, as if in vindication of what I am trying to say here. "Customer

satisfaction plumbs the depths as a survey suggests that we are fed up with poor services"

states the Times. I can guarantee that there will be no

discussion/debate/criticism of that little article in the trade press!

Why do People need to Interact?

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.

Unlike the lockstep conformity imposed by television, advertising, and corporate propaganda, interactive communication gives new legitimacy – and free rein – to play.

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.

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.

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.

Do you agree with Mad Ave's 16-car pileup?

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.

"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."

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.

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.

Refocus on consumer, not media
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.

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."

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."

Do you think that Media Pollution Is Worsening Despite Cleanup Efforts?

　

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.
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.
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.

That's our clutter problem -- and yours.

Shotgun blasts
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.

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.

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.

"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."