Marketing Works A Lot Better When You Get Consumers To Want It

from the it's-viral,-man dept

Fri, Sep 22nd 2006 10:04am — Carlo Longino

Despite the availability of all sorts of new media for advertisers to use -- the web, mobile phones, video on demand, and so on -- most don't seem to understand or embrace the real interactivity they allow. All too often, their new-media strategies rely on just reformatting existing old-media advertising, so VOD becomes nothing more than a vehicle to deliver standard TV ads, or the web a place to display smaller versions of print display ads. But slowly, some companies are realizing that instead of just using these media to push their advertising at anybody and everybody they can, they're much better off and their advertising is much more effective when they get individual consumers to pull advertising to themselves. A new breed of ad agencies are convincing companies that this sort of thinking should lead their advertising strategies, and that new media shouldn't be thought about only at the end, after a traditional agency has created the big 30-second TV or magazine ad. One significant difference with these companies is how they bill for their services: they typically tie their fees to growth in their customers' businesses, rather than using the antiquated agency billing model based around retainers, hourly rates and media-buying commissions. As one agency exec says in the original article, this is backwards: traditional agencies are charging high prices for what are commodity services, while undervaluing the creative work that's actually worth a premium. The idea that advertisers need to do more to engage consumers, particularly when using interactive media, certainly aren't new. But with companies increasingly moving their advertising dollars away from television, perhaps they're starting to catch on.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chaos, 22 Sep 2006 @ 11:00am

The point being?
All that's to be said is said in the title of the article..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Long, 22 Sep 2006 @ 11:05am

Sustainable
Yes, but how sustainable is that approach? Creating a cool BMW video that I can see on their site is one thing, but does the same approach work when Ford, GM, Chrysler, Mercedes, and Volvo are doing the same thing? Not to mention Nike, Coke, Apple, Sony, and Kraft?

In a way, it's the same as the excitement generated when a big-name band decides to give away a free mp3. It's different and unique. If EVERY big-name band does it, however, then the effect is pretty much nullified. Everyone is doing it, ergo, it's no longer news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanguine Dream, 22 Sep 2006 @ 11:23am

Well...
I hope that whoever comes up with the new ad business model they are ready. Because just as sure as hell as soon as they release it and see that it is successful the me-too and patent war effects will kick in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beefcake, 22 Sep 2006 @ 12:10pm

Re: Sustainable
It should be very sustainable. It just means that ad companies have to continue to innovate instead of copying. Yes, if everyone uses a cool video on their site to sell a car the effect will be diluted, but if GM let's BMW post a video while they come up with something else equally invigorating, it will continue to be effective.

Ad companies have become wealthy based on ineffective campaigns which copy each other. Now that they're being asked to earn that wealth by actually coming up with creative marketing, they're unhappy because it's hard. Well, hard for the personnel who have grown up in that mindset, at any rate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Topher3105, 22 Sep 2006 @ 12:21pm

Actually, its the other way around
Marketing is about making people want your product. If your a marketing department, and you job is to try and sell a product everybody wants (like an iPod), then you got a pretty easy life.

In fact, I am getting pretty tired of seeing iPod ads, as well as advertising for products that really do not need advertising.

The world is quickly revolving around advertising, and I am getting pretty sick of it. Ad agencies are making billions for doing nothing more then hounding consumers and begging them to buy the products by companies that give them top dollar. I can not browse the web, watch TV, watch a movie, or even drive to work without being bombarded by ads.

The bottom line is, stop it. I mean, I buy things like laundry detergent because it was the one item on the shelf that was on sale. I do not care if its because I saw an ad on TV about Tide laundry detergent. Instead of Tide wasting millions on advertising, save the money and just make their product $1 cheaper then their competitors, they will seill more product that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grant W., 22 Sep 2006 @ 12:25pm

Re: Re: Sustainable
Regarding the first paragraph: I think there's still a little room for taking the same innovative advertising model that another company came up with and making an engaging ad with it. You and the previous poster are right in that it can't be stretched too far, but look at the Carlson Beer "Big Ad". Plenty of other companies have video ads on their websites, but Carlson's ad stood out because it was a unique ad within that online-video-ad format -- and more importantly, because it was very, very funny. And it was effective -- I buy Carlson now whenever I want a brew like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darren Contardo, 22 Sep 2006 @ 12:33pm

Permission marketing isn't new and it sure is sust
Permission Marketing was a great book by Seth Godin, which he wrote several years back. Google has adopted it, RSS feeds are here for a reason, Email Marketing lives off of it, mobile marketing to a degree embraces it and now TV is dabbling in it. So what's the big deal?

Agencies cry because it's hard, but guess what? It's reality!!! Nobody wants to get beaten over the head with PUSH marketing anymore. Adwords makes hundreds of millions from surfers pre-qualifying themselves with contextual keyword searches. Why not serve up interactive TV ads with products that are actually placed in the show themselves? Like that glass your favorite star is using to drink that WolfBlass Red Label? Just press a key on the remote to view the commercial or product details. Of course, this model makes life more difficult because you need the network approval, product placement agreements, and the technology from the service provider to execute. But hey? That's the future! Why? Because it's contextual and permission based.

Revenue model? I think it should be based on perceived value. High value = big money. Low value = pocket change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nope, 22 Sep 2006 @ 1:55pm

Re: Actually, its the other way around
While you are right that marketing is about making people wnat to buy your product it isn't done by just hounding. Branding has been the vogue for 20 years now and a key principle to it says that consumers own the brand and it is the marketing's job to accentuate the positive attributes of their product. Circuit city thought that it didn't need to advertise any more...they got toasted by Best Buy (most people don't remember the days when CC was way bigger than BB). Advertising is very important you may be a cheapskate that doesn't care about brands but you are in the minority.
Secondly, everything cost money and the cost is offset by advertising so unless you want to pay way more for your tv, cars, internet, newspapers, magazines, or anything else that uses advertising than you better get used to it.
it is true that ads that don't pertain to you personally suck and annoy and that my friend is the main problem with advertising right now. But with new technology the goal is to only serve you with ads that contain products you are interested in.
Third if ads didn't bring down the cost of media consumption then our 4th estate would be in more trouble than it is in now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kweeket, 22 Sep 2006 @ 3:06pm

Re: Permission marketing isn't new and it sure is
I think this would actually be a very cool and compelling way to advertise. Think about it, with a click of a button, text describing a blurb about the products used on screen would appear on your favourite sitcom or movie. And if you were running Windows Media Center or a TV setup with internet, you could even click on the links to go directly to a page to buy the product (with the network getting some sort of referral bonus).

I'm imaging that scene in "Fight Club" when Jack's condo becomes the 3-D Ikea ad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cleverboy, 24 Sep 2006 @ 4:41pm

All Fine and Good...
But, I think the subject is not only self-evident, but dangerous if one assumes that it is more than simply ANOTHER WAY to advertise. Old methods are not made obsolete. Maybe I'm cynical, but advertisers know that advertising WORKS. Span the gamut and see: endorsements, sales copy, product placement, push, pull...

They are a spectrum of methods in the gattling gun of sales, and assuming that any ONE of these is suddenly... "THE FUTURE" (insert Doc Brown inflection here) is a capital "M" mistake.

Sometimes its easy to take a "they just don't get it" attitude, but that doesn't make it the right attitude. Hey, I guess that attitude "sells", doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]