MediaVision Blog : Search Engine Marketing

Advertisements are not my favourite things in the world. It’s not that I find them intrusive (aside from pop ups and unsolicited emails), and it’s not really that I find them annoying (aside from pop ups, unsolicited emails and property pamphlets), it’s that by and large I find ads to be bland, insipid and uninspired. In some instances it’s very difficult to believe that the ideas were actually sanctioned and given the go-ahead by a committee of supposedly informed decision makers. The thing that makes it all so much sadder is that you just know that someone was very excited and very proud of the concept. Take the Meerkat in the South African Vodacom ad, for instance, many people thought that it was brilliant, cool, funny and marketing genius. But an equal number of people, myself included, thought that it was ridiculous, inane and epitomised the gunk that is scraped off the bottom of the barrel of creativity.

Genius is very much in the eye of the beholder, which is what makes advertising so difficult. Trying to appeal to a target audience, no matter how niche or how much they have in common, is always going to be an uphill battle simply because there is no accounting for taste. Online advertising has an advantage over traditional advertising media because advertisers can tailor their campaigns for a more specific audience. Online advertisers also benefit from greater interactivity. Appealing, interesting or quirky adverts are likely to go viral and spread rapidly across the Net. But subjectivity still rears its ugly head and advertisers could find their hard work going viral for the wrong reasons. A bad advert or failed campaign that goes viral can do a great damage to a company’s credibility; making a lie of the adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Relevance is a key problem in all forms of advertising. How do you create a campaign that addresses the unique needs of all the members of your target market? In a fairly controversial move, many companies are researching and collecting data about Internet users’ online activity. The data collected will give them insight into the interests and search habits of users, and will allow advertisers to target individuals with specific, highly relevant ad campaigns. The theory is that users will no longer be subjected to annoying and irrelevant ads but will receive ads tailored to their specific tastes. Advertisers will also benefit from a greater number of conversions and ROI.

The problem with the theory is that people don’t like having their online habits monitored. They feel that they are being spied on, that their privacy is violated and that they can’t trust advertisers not to do anything nefarious with the information, like sell it to malicious marketers or unscrupulous spammers. And once Internet users decide that they don’t like something, it’s very difficult to change their minds. ISPs have guaranteed that all user information remains completely anonymous, that ISP addresses are not stored and that there is no chance of information falling into the wrong hands, and still Internet users protest.

I believe that their primary concern is one of control. Despite the fact that the Internet is pretty much run by Google, people have the perception that they are in control of their actions online. They control their searches, they control their level of interaction, they control what they decide to contribute and take away from their web experience. Any threat to that perception of control and hackles rise automatically and heels are dug in in protest.

Consumers will have to get used to the idea of personal information being used to create specially targeted ad campaigns because “message customisation” (as DoshDosh puts it) is the way of the future. Quividi, a French marketing technology firm, has created an intuitive digital advertisement that uses a camera and computer to monitor the people walk past or stop and look at a billboard advertisement. Data collected includes the number of people walking in front of the screen, how many looked at the screen and how much time they spent looking at the screen. It differentiates between genders and changes the face of the ad so that men and women see different screens. Quividi hopes to further distinguish between different ages and family groups as they develop their technology.

That kind of advertising I can get on board with. It’s relatively non-invasive and is based purely on physical characteristics. It’s still optional in that it doesn’t force itself on the general public. Holosonic, a US technology company, however, has taken things a couple steps too far. They have developed the Audio Spotlight, which projects a beam of sound into a small area around it. It’s effective to a distance of about 60ft, which is quite far. The purpose is to “startle and entertain” people who enter the zone, but will remain inaudible to all those passing outside it. In my opinion this is invasive, intrusive and a gross violation of personal space (although you are free to disagree). I do not want anything beamed into my head, thank you very much. I certainly wouldn’t find the experience “entertaining”. I would find it disturbing and alarming and would probably have to stop off at a shrink on my way home. Target my Internet user information if you will, but stay out of my head.

According to Maki from DoshDosh, ad campaigns of the future will be designed as “favourable interruptions which pre-empt consumer needs”. And this is great. Maki says that companies will have to keep up-to-date with developments in technology so that they will be aware of all the new and innovative ways to target their audience. They will also gain invaluable information regarding the behaviour of their audience and will be better able to understand them. He says that advertisers will have to learn to take consumer involvement into account and that they need to let go of the need for absolute control. And this is also great.

But aside from the odd quirky or entertaining advert, I fail to see a future where advertisements become “favourable interruptions”. An interruption is almost by definition unfavourable. We’re already so overloaded with information that comes at us from all sides and in all forms that we’re largely desensitised to what goes on around us. I don’t see a future for advertising that dramatically changes that. Advertising will always have its place in marketing, and there is no doubt that highly relevant, highly targeted ads will be a boon to the industry and consumers alike, but I don’t believe that it will ever be regarded as anything other than a ploy to capture attention.