A recent US survey revealed that more than half of TV viewers actually leave the room during commercials. This is bad news for advertisers, without whose support many programs could not be provided in the first place, but I don’t imagine anyone is about to give up viewing entirely.
With digital video recorders, people can zap the commercials automatically now anyway, so imposing ads forcibly in ever- increasing numbers is not the answer. It’s a total waste.
Similarly online, people have software to block banner ads, or they’ve just become “blind” to them. Popup blocking is built into toolbars and browsers. Tests have found that people won’t tolerate (and leave) sites with more than two ads per page and, mentally block out things in the right hand column (a frequent location for extra ads).
Bigger banners aren’t going to change people’s minds.
Shouting more hype at them hasn’t either.
Readers won’t even accept advertising to support free email publications: they complain about its inclusion, messages are too frequent, that they’re already overloaded …
As consumers, we’ve have had it up to “here” with the constant bombardment. And, when you think about it, phobias are treated similarly. People either avoid the problem or get treatment where the situation is confronted, via repeated exposure, until it no longer bothers them.
They become de-sensitised, as they have to advertising.
A huge clue to the direction in which the market is heading has been in the press the National Do-Not-Call Registry has gotten lately. One day it’s on, next it’s off …
Yet, I believe the debaters are missing the point entirely. It really doesn’t matter what’s “technically legal”, nor what the courts or politicians say. The consumer doesn’t want to be called, pitched, touted to or sold. Period.
S/he’s said so in the millions and what the consumer demands is a very powerful thing. It IS what determines the market.
Trying to change people’s minds, telling them they’ll have to put up with it, or else, isn’t working. Never will.
On the other hand, if people will not tolerate or patronise advertising to support services they want to use, then paying for them is the only other option available.
Memberships and pay for content are not new concepts, of course, but there has been and will continue to be an increase in this model. MSN is closing or making users pay for chat. They may be citing other reasons, but the fact is, if their users want it badly enough and consider it to be sufficient value for money, they will pay for it.
That’s not bad business.
TV already has some answers we can draw comparisons from. The BBC in the UK puts out the highest quality programs, without any advertising breaks, but viewers have to pay an annual license fee. Satellite stations require subscriptions for their premium content, targeted to specific interests.
In order to satisfy the desires of today’s more discerning consumer, more subtle “pull” advertising methods, like search engines, where the customer is in control to make their own choices, will continue to grow in importance.
Excessive screaming of advertising messages will not, because people have already, universally, decided that they don’t want it and will avoid or ignore it.
Savvy marketers will back off before we all become totally ad-phobic, because customers are always right, remember.
Copyright 2003 Pamela Heywood
Click here to sign up for FREE B2B newsletters from murdok!
Copyright 2003 Pamela Heywood
Get All Good Things for Your Personal and Business Success
My short, weekly, newsletter brings you help & resources you can use today … Subscribe mailto:allgoodthings@sendfree.com
Or visit: http://www.pamela-heywood.com
