Guy Kewney's SCREENS.tv Digital Signage Blog

Hitting back at ad avoidance (0 comments)

It’s got to be the non-surprise of the century: the reason people don’t like junk mail is that it doesn't interest them, reports TiVo.

TiVo didn’t actually say that “we shouldn’t show people adverts they don’t want to see”, but it did hint at it. Using phrases like “new insights that were unimaginable only a few years ago”, Tracey Scheppach of Starcom – which is partnering with TiVo on an advertising research tool called the PowerWatch Consumer Panel – said: “New viewing behaviours revealed by correlations between household demographic, product category and ad fast-forwarding shows that while everyone is fast-forwarding through ads, effective message delivery can help make an ad resonate more.”

So: when are we going to start sending people the ads they want to see? And not just on their set-top boxes, but in stores, and by the bus stop? Or as an ad-agency exec might pose the question, how do we con people into looking at ads they don’t want to see?

Half the skill of really clever creative campaigns is exactly that. Nobody needs brown water with bubbles in it, but advertising has made Coke and Pepsi Cola the brand powers they are.

But the lessons learned by the advertising industry may not be the ones TiVo is trying to teach. What TiVo has shown is that yes, people skip adverts – but also, they eagerly watch adverts that are relevant to them.

For out-of-home screen media, the lesson surely has to be that we need the sort of user data TiVo can offer its advertisers. We have to find ways of identifying the specific viewer, not just the demographic.

This means that we aren’t just going into DIY stores and showing videos of people buying plant pots, on the vague grounds that they might reach the same people. It means we are actually tracking their loyalty cards as individuals, and finding ways of working out which aisle they are pushing their carts down, and predicting what they are likely to need next.

Take someone who has purchased drill bits, a saw and rabbit food; do they actually have a rabbit cage already? Maybe they are the sort of person who could be tempted to buy the new, giant, multi-storey rabbit mansion? Or a rabbit security system (or even a rabbit cookbook)? Or planks and wire mesh? Or are they a doting grandmother, ready for adverts about cuddly rabbit toys?

TiVo-type user data would make sure we knew which person was interested in what. Cellular-phone data would give us a fix on where they are, to within ten feet. Loyalty-card data would let us know their purchasing patterns as well as their current interests. Computer data mining would make the entire process utterly painless and virtually cost-free.

So the problem of “which adverts do you skip?” isn't a problem – it's a powerful tool. If people skip a particular advert, don’t show it them! If you can spot the ones they stop and look at, show them more like those. How hard is the principle to grasp?

We need billboards that recognise individual buyers. We need Web servers which spot the particular surfer. And we need to make the audience understand the value, not just to us, but to them, of giving us access to all this data.

It all boils down to grabbing the “privacy” idiom by the neck, and understanding the real differences between genuine intrusiveness, and “providing a helpful service”. And the tools to nip the ad-blocking trend in the bud are within our grasp. All we need, frankly, is a few industry leaders with the courage to use them. 

Advertising: enough is enough (0 comments)

Busking is a way of making money, but I’d be reluctant to call it a business plan.

In the opinion of computer pioneer Charles Babbage, it was an evil so great that he went to the trouble of lobbying Parliament to have it banned; and banned it remained in London till very recently indeed. It was a nuisance, he said. And most of us, if inflicted with a hurdy-gurdy grinder outside our home, would probably have supported the bill.

Parliament told the buskers: “Go away.”  And a lot of people who made an adequate living out of performing on street corners were suddenly out of work.

Similar fates await the advertising bubble, on computer desktops, and in public, if the marketing world can’t get reality into perspective. Yes, there’s money to be made in advertising. But it’s no substitute for having a real product that people want, when it comes to media.

Recently, a group of venture capitalists bemoaned the fact that most Internet startups, when asked where they thought their revenue would come from, said: “Advertising, of course!” And they spoke as people speak of a resource; something that was there like sunlight; and all you had to do was expose yourself to it.

But speaking purely as a consumer of advertising, I’ve had enough.

On my computer, recently, my Internet browser was using 98 percent of the available processing power. And it was all going to running programs I didn’t want to have running – advertising. The culprits: all the big news sources from the Wall Street Journal to Fox to the Telegraph to CNET and a host of others. Pouring data into my computer, they had flooded it. My only option was to get a much, much more powerful machine, or block the adverts. I chose the latter: I said: “Go away!”

The thing is, most advertising is not of interest to me. Like busking, it’s assembled to suit the tastes of the bulk of the market; but when I want music, I like to make my own choice. And when it comes to advertising, there are actually things I want to buy, about which I’d welcome more information. There are also things I don’t want to buy, will never buy, cannot use. How many tampon adverts is it worth showing me? What are the chances that I’ll be asked to advise on lipstick purchases? What on earth is the point of offering me cheaper car insurance when I already have the cheapest deal available? Go away.

Information announcements are equally insensitive. Having forked out a very tidy sum for DVD entertainment, I’m about ready to download every free video on the Net. Reason: I’m fed up of being preached to about how wicked it is of me to download free videos. Me, who just bent the credit card almost double pouring cash into their coffers! Go away!

Those who blithely assume that people will tolerate advertising, however much of it they are subjected to, may be wrong. I’m not the only angry one.

Adverts on TV are a good excuse to press pause on the digital video. It’s less easy to block out posters and screen media in supermarkets and conference halls, but I don’t think we can assume that this means we have a licence to cover the world with flickering images. As poet Ogden Nash put it, “I think that I shall never see a billboard lovely as a tree”.

The backlash will come. I don’t think people will tamely sit by and watch the world blotted out by excited marketing messages much longer; I’m pretty sure they will start demanding action to stop it.

And at that point, media which have loyal, paying subscribers who actually know what they want and spend money to get it will be able to continue. And free media which provides the public with exactly what they pay for will be squeezed a lot tighter than Babbage’s buskers.

No, I don’t think it’ll happen this year, but if we don’t become more intelligent in the way we target our commercial messages, it’s pretty much inevitable. 

What advertising needs is a spy to watch consumers (0 comments)

These days, we’re getting excited about being able to target the individual user. From a product placement point of view, it works really well – the Internet collects data about what sort of stuff this consumer buys, and you show the consumer that stuff. And that’s it; pay Google or DoubleClick, and go home.

Well, not really; there’s still the tricky question of how we make this product seem appealing to the individual consumer.

At the end of the day, putting the stock in the shop window isn’t advertising; and today’s Internet advertising really isn’t more sophisticated than showing them which shelf it’s on. You’re counting on their knowing what they want. But of course, the art of advertising is persuading people to want something.

I was looking at “an excellent example” of “how advertising will look on Internet-connected mobile phones” recently. I stared at the photograph for a good minute, wondering where the advert was; it appeared to be a TV programme listing. Finally, almost with the aid of a magnifying glass, I found an orange banner (an inch wide! a banner?) saying “London S299” – which, on closer inspection, appeared to be an advertisement for a $299 airline ticket.

Persuasive? Not even a bit. It wouldn’t be tempting even if it could be flashed up in front of you in the travel agent; you’d have to have already decided you want to go to London, and have done some research on likely prices. It’s not advertising. Advertising is stuff which makes you want to eat Wotsits or Pringles – stuff which will instantly cause an exciting party to materialise around you, and lots of exciting, sexy people, all in a good mood…yeah, right. But it works! – who would eat Pringles otherwise?

The problem which faces creative advertisers in the future isn’t reaching the consumer. It’s the question of “what sort of person is it?” and “what sort of bait will they swallow?” – and bingo! – we’re back to demographics. Suddenly, we’re not looking at Tim, 27, just got a promotion and lost his girlfriend, or Jenny, 55 and wallowing in alimony and fury. Instead, we’re saying vague, woolly things like “the sort of person who we’re trying to attract…” and trying to create viral videos that these people will pass around to each other.

What’s needed is a spy – following the consumer around, and noticing things. Let’s do the sci-fi thing, and imagine an artificial intelligence, living and sulking in a mobile phone, with nothing to amuse itself with except studying the person carrying the phone; and reporting back on moods and habits.

Actually, absurd though that might sound, it’s not entirely impossible. You can play with quite simple interactive “personalities” which can amuse you by appearing to be intelligent, and any of today’s personal organisers already know far too much about us. Give me a computer diary with an attitude problem (Terry Pratchett fans will know the demon’s name) and I think you could probably come up with a strategy for divining the mug’s state of mind.

So, really, we only have two problems to solve. First, to find someone in a position to create a personal information manager with this character defect – plus the ability to smuggle it into a majority of pockets, of course. And second, someone exactly like that, but with a sufficiently evil sense of mischief to allow them to go for it.

Ah, if only Google didn’t have that irritating slogan: “Don’t be evil.” Then what fun we advertising types could anticipate in another decade, eh?