Advertising Is Everywhere... Even Armpits?

from the product-placement dept

If you were among those who thought advertising in urinals was reaching a new low, you probably won't be please to learn of the new ad campaign from deodorant maker Right Guard. The Raw Feed points us to the news that it's kicking off a promotional campaign/publicity stunt, where it appears to be outfitting folks with clothing that has video screens sewn into their armpits, which will be running a constant stream of ads for Right Guard. It's certainly a different way of getting attention.

Filed Under: advertising, everywhere, product placement

Fewer Amenities When You Fly... But Instead You'll Get A Lot More Ads!

from the can't-wait! dept

Have you flown lately? It's becoming less and less enjoyable by the day, it seems. Many airlines are dumping features, adding fees and making sure customer service is about as frustrating as possible. On top of all that, it appears that airlines are so focused on cost cutting that they're looking to do whatever possible to shave the slightest bit of weight from each flight (fewer passengers would be one suggestion) including one airline that discovered removing seatback magazines saved thousands of dollars by making the airplane lighter (yes, seriously).

So, what do you have to look forward to on flights these days? Well, advertisements! There's a new startup that is promising to put contextual ads everywhere from your boarding pass to the check-in terminals and (we're sure) to the seatbacks in front of you on the plane. Now, of course, this idea isn't entirely new. Over in Europe discount airlines have been offering up cheap fares while making it up with all sorts of other fees and services. But, then again, no one's talking about cheap fares in the US either. In the meantime, if they're looking for ideas, I still think the flying casino may be the best idea yet. Get people to simply gamble away their money while flying across the country. However, until that comes to pass, expect worse service, fewer amenities, more fees... and tons of advertising.

Filed Under: advertising, amenities, fees, flying

Remember All Those 'Influence' Ad Companies? They May Have A Patent Problem

from the ah-google dept

It was just a couple weeks ago that we (skeptically) noted that there were a bunch of companies trying to create systems to use things like a "FriendRank" to use "influence" to help advertise. However, it looks like those companies may have to deal with a bit of a patent block. Slashdot points out that Google has applied for a patent on just such a process to establish a sort of "FriendRank." Of course, the fact that there are a bunch of companies all trying to do this (prior to this patent application being published) certainly suggests that this is hardly the sort of breakthrough that requires a patent (though, it seems likely that those other companies are also applying for patents, meaning we may soon have yet another patent thicket).

Filed Under: advertising, influence, influentials, patents
Companies: google

Is The Mobile Ad Market Poised To Break Out... Or To Disappear?

from the are-mobile-ads-necessary? dept

Matt Marshall over at VentureBeat has an excellent article on AdMob, a top company in the mobile advertising space. Marshall does some back-of-the-envelope calculations to come up with some revenue figures and notes that AdMob is poised to start "minting" money as the mobile web takes off. It may happen, but I wonder if the mobile ad market will really be as big a deal as some make it out to be -- for a few reasons. First, it seems incredibly unlikely that mobile ads get anywhere near the clickthrough rate of web-based ads. Given the scenarios under which mobile content is usually called up (on the go, looking for something specific), it seems likely that mobile ads would get significantly less attention. Second, and more importantly, the concept of "the mobile web" still seems like a temporary invention that is destined to go away. As the iPhone has shown, it is possible to design a rather competent browser that can show "the full web" on a mobile phone. With mobile network speeds increasing, and more handsets bound to offer similar browsing functionality in the not-too-distant future, the distinction between the mobile web and the regular web seem destined to go away. At that point, specifically mobile ads will make even less sense, and the market will simply return to the existing market for web ads.

Filed Under: advertising, mobile ads, mobile web
Companies: admob

Theaters Working To Make Even The Pre-Show Ads More Entertaining

from the good-for-everyone dept

Two different themes we've discussed here quite often are (1) that movie theaters need to stop worrying about piracy, and focus more on improving the moviegoing experience and (2) that advertising is content -- and it better be good content if you want the advertising to be effective. That's why it's somewhat encouraging to see that movie theaters are now experimenting with much more entertaining and interactive "pre-show" advertising. They're doing things like using motion sensors to have the audience "play" a game as a group, or having them use their mobile phones to vote on certain questions on the screen and immediately showing the results. That latter example may be doubly surprising considering how theaters these days are so anti-mobile phone. Still, while this is a move in the right direction, it's the wrong thing to be focusing on at this point. Improving the overall experience is much more important than making the pre-show ads better, so hopefully this is only one small part of what theaters are working on these days.

Filed Under: advertising, content, movies, theaters

Kia Decides That It No Longer Wants Its TV Commercials To Be Entertaining

from the um...-why? dept

For a while now, we've been pointing out how, for advertising to be effective, it also needs to be good content that people don't just "not mind" seeing, but which they're willing to actively seek out. It appears that automaker Kia has decided to go with the exact opposite strategy. Reader Brooks writes in to point us to the news that Kia's new marketing director in the US doesn't want people entertained:

"We don't want to spend a good chunk of our time in a 30-second spot trying to entertain people."

That's part of his plan to move away from a series of rather entertaining commercials that have provided plenty of free advertising for the firm, as people passed them around virally. Apparently, Kia would prefer that no one help them advertise and, indeed, that no one actually watches their ads. Time to think again, Kia. If you want advertising to be effective, it does need to entertain people.

Filed Under: advertising, cars, content, entertainment
Companies: kia

Are Companies Responsible For Actions Of Affiliates?

from the lawsuits-galore dept

Back in May we wrote about how shoe store DSW was suing Zappos over potential trademark infringement done by an affiliate -- and now we've got another similar story. The company NameSafe is suing competitor LifeLock over Google ads that make use of NameSafe's name. While we've seen plenty of lawsuits where Google was incorrectly sued over ads based on competitor search terms, this case actually does seem a little more reasonable on those points: rather than suing Google, NameSafe is suing LifeLock, and NameSafe can probably make a half-decent case that the ads could be seen as confusing or deceptive.

However, where this case gets more interesting is on the question of whether LifeLock is to blame -- or if it's the fault of an affiliate marketer, as LifeLock claims. LifeLock says that it terminated the affiliate's account and also reminded all of its affiliates that this type of activity goes against their reseller agreements. That seems like a reasonable response, but for now the lawsuit against LifeLock continues, which will inevitably raise questions about whether or not a company is responsible for the actions of its affiliates and resellers. It seems like common sense to say no -- that the liability should remain with those who actually did the action -- but we've seen stranger decisions from courts before, so it may not be clear cut here.

Filed Under: advertising, affiliates, google ads, liability
Companies: lifelock, namesafe

New Push Towards Social Advertising May Miss The Fact That Influence Isn't Static

from the check-yer-assumptions dept

As more and more people are realizing that banner ads don't work very well as advertising, there's a rush on to find better alternatives. What's now getting a lot of attention is "influential" ads. News.com has two examples of new companies trying to put this into action. The first is a company called 33Across that tries to use some algorithm to figure out who is most "influential" online and target ads towards them, hoping they'll influence others. The other is a company with the most generic name for this space: SocialMedia, who is hyping up the fact that it's come up with a "FriendRank" to determine how influential someone is, and then try to get those influential people to effectively "endorse" advertisements that their friends see.

These approaches have plenty of problems, but the biggest one is the simple fact that studies are starting to show that the concept of "influentials" is overstated. Sure, people are influenced by others, but it's not because some officially designated "influential" influences them. Influence doesn't work that way. People don't trust people because they're suddenly considered influential. They trust people because they know that individual well and trust them on that particular topic. In other words, Bill could be influential on a certain topic to Jill, but won't be influential to others or on other subjects.

But, these services don't seem to do much to recognize that. Instead, they assume that people actually have some sort of universal "influential" rank. What they'll quickly discover is that this won't be very effective, because people won't be influenced by who these services think are influential. And, if anything, these efforts will decrease influence by inserting additional friction. If I were to see a friend in an ad for a product, before making me think that product is more interesting, it will make me wonder what my friend gets out of it, and whether or not he really believes in the product. I trust recommendations that come up unsolicited -- not those that are built into an ad unit.

Filed Under: advertising, banner ads, influence, influencers, social networks
Companies: 33across, socialmedia

What Difference Does It Make If Product Placement Is Disclosed Or Not?

from the grow-up,-get-over-it dept

After a bunch of consumer groups started complaining, it appears that the FCC is going to start exploring whether or not TV shows need to be a lot more explicit in identifying product placement. This is, frankly, ridiculous. Is anyone actually being harmed by product placement? Plenty of people recognize that products in TV shows are placed there for a reason, and if they feel wrong or don't work with the content in the show, then the show itself will suffer for it. However, if they make a show more realistic or it works fine, then what's the problem? Who, exactly, is being hurt?

The problem is that people still think that content and advertising are different. They're not. All content is advertising in some manner or another. A TV show acts as advertising for the network it's on, for the actors in the show, for the producer of the show and as "endorsers" of the products in its ads. Does that all need to be disclosed as well? If people are upset that there's "too much" advertising, then there's a simple solution: don't spend time with the shows that bombard you with too much advertising. However, if it fits in with the show, then it won't seem like too much, and there's no reason to complain. Either way, there's no reason for the FCC to get involved at all. However, since they are getting involved, will they "disclose" that this grandstanding acts as "advertising" for their own reputations?

Filed Under: advertising, product placement, regulations

Google Admits It Still Hasn't Figured Out How To Make Money From YouTube

from the keep-trying dept

When Google shelled out $1.65 billion for YouTube two years ago, you had to figure that the company had some plans on how to make money with the site. Apparently not. Google is admitting that it's still not quite sure how to make money with the property, though folks seem sure there must be some way. Still, from this discussion it appears that the massively hyped video overlay ads haven't really lived up to expectations.

To be honest, it still seems like the wrong thing to do to figure out how to stick ads on YouTube -- because no such ad is going to get very much attention. People come to YouTube to watch the videos they want to watch, not to be annoyed by an irrelevant ad. Instead, the real focus should be on the fact that YouTube videos themselves are advertising -- the question is just: for what?

Filed Under: advertising, business models, online video
Companies: google, youtube