Something doesn’t ad up about America’s advertising market
economist.com
economist.com
My tolerance is way lower than that now. Commercial TV is basically unwatchable, as is commercial radio. The internet is pretty horrible without an ad blocker. Anything more than 10-20% advertising just gets turned off immediately.
What really got me was back when the Battlestar Galactica pilot screened on TV. I was very keen to see it, and heard the pilot was three hours three minutes long.
It was split up, on TV3 I think, into two 180 minute slots, which means there were almost as many minutes of ads as there were of the show. I had to turn it off after one scene was interrupted in the middle for an ad-break that was longer than the scene, then we came back for a single line (now out-of-context) and one camera change, then cut to another break. (For reference, it was a scene with the nuke hitting the Galactica, then six minutes of ads interrupted by about 25 seconds of show.)
I turned off my TV, found an email address, and explained to them just why I was going to buy the DVD and not watch another second of their broadcast.
TV advertising is so intrusive these days that I haven't watched broadcast TV in years.
https://lifehacker.com/network-television-stations-speed-up-...
We don't watch adverts - Netflix, amazon, IPlayer. However each year we do make an effort to hunt out the Christmas adverts on YouTube -- John Lewis, Sainsbury's, Tesco etc.
Adverts cost a fortune. If 10 million people watch a half hour program, that's 1.5m hours of wasted time - costing something like $20m. Then you end up paying through increased prices of the goods being advertised (there's obviously a return on investment)
I'd always assumed the causation arrow was in the opposite direction. Or at least a big reason a sport is popular in the US is its ad-friendliness.
The other kind of football is flowing and therefore less attractive to ad supported TV networks.
The action is short and violent, which makes it both exciting and yet easy to watch while chatting with your friends. You can't miss a critical shift in the play because you had to look away for a few moments.
Most men (and many women) played it as children and teenagers, and so have a strong sense of nostalgia for it.
Many small towns pretty much only had football as entertainment for many years prior to the internet - it has momentum among the older audiences.
Football represents the epitome of the American dream. Everyone "knows" someone who has "made it" to the NFL, no matter how tenuous the connection may be. It reinforces the idea that anyone can make it if they just work hard enough.
Add in the complete lack of regulation and the highly political sales process for most large campaigns and you end up with the current mess.
There clearly are "good" advertising options. People will often read topic specific periodicals (magazines, newsletters, Etc.) both for the editorial content and the advertising of service providers surrounding the topic. And of course there are people who will be more excited about the advertisements on the Superbowl next weekend than the game. But advertising as envisioned by Google and Facebook feel like they are under siege and there is a race to the bottom in terms of what advertisers will pay, and so how much they 'care' about the end product.
The growing battle will be advertisements "embedded" in content. People can already replace billboards in movies or on Youtube with ads for actual products. At some point these 'insertion points' will be programmed in as meta-data in the distribution of content so that they can be added in on site. Things from store fronts to the vehicles in the scene are up for dynamic replacement.
TV is almost unwatchable now because of ads. I can tolerate them for an hour or so, but past this I get anxiety and then frustration from seeing them if they aren't muted. At some point I begin to feel irrational hostility to the brands on TV.
I struggle to remember the last time I saw an ad that triggered real curiosity or a desire to purchase something. Usually I'll hear about things I want from personal channels, by seeking them out myself, or from mailing lists I've explicitly signed up for.
Of course, maybe I'm being influenced in ways I don't realize or understand. But I kind of doubt the effect is very large. I compare products on ingredients, price, utility, etc. and make a decision from there. There are a handful of brands which have intrinsic value to me, but it's because of good experiences and recommendations from people I trust, not ads.
I don't think I'm atypical for my demographic, and there seem to be others who concur [0] [1]. Whether it's the majority, I'm not sure, but a sizable chunk seem to have become averse/resistant to traditional in-your-face, attention monopolizing ads. Influencers, sponsored content, and product placement may have better reach in the near future among these people. There's also IoT purchasing interfaces like Amazon Echo and Google Home which stand to be a powerful gatekeeper to products.
It'll be interesting to see how this turns out and whether the marginal influence of an ad increases or decreases over time as AI, surveillance, and micro-targeting improve and as society and culture respond.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2015/04/28/researc...
[1] http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Millennials-really-ha...
The "strong signal" message is diluted by ultra-targeted-ads, but you will still be aware of the product.
Whether it still is a net gain in your (and similar targets) case, maybe no one knows.
This is a good point and does affect me to varying extent. I would say strong signaling is the least effective for certain food items, mouthwash, toothpaste, vitamins, etc. where the makeup and price of the item is simple and comparable between brand names and off-brands. Where there are sufficient trustworthy reviews of items, it is also less effective. When it's something I need quickly or when the tolerance for failure is low, I'm much more likely to default to a peacock type of product that's established itself.
I don't necessarily see ads as a bad thing. As a consumer, I want to know if there is something that can improve my life or that I want. Once I canceled cable in my house, I found I stopped going to movies. This was actually a sad realization as I wanted to see a lot of them in theaters, but missed that window by quite a lot because I had literally no idea they were out.
As a creator, obviously ads are a fantastic way to get your product or service out there and get the ball rolling.
I don't want ads to be disruptive, but I also don't want them to be ignored completely. Finding that line is the hard part, and I'm hoping it's possible.
I hadn't considered a sort of diffusion process for ad reach, and it's an intriguing point. I can't recall a specific instance of this, although I would actually be surprised if it hasn't happened. My immediate social circle of friends and colleagues is similar to me, but even several degrees of separation out I could see a relevant product percolating through my extended network and reaching me by word of mouth.
> I don't necessarily see ads as a bad thing
I don't view them as inherently bad in theory, but my experience is almost never positive. Mass market ads feel like a drain on my time and attention without benefit. On the other hand, targeted and relevant ads will be paid for with my personal data, which carries risk to my privacy. Neither side of that trade-off is attractive. The time I do appreciate ads is when I'm shopping or getting offers from a merchant I've done business with, which of course excludes a large number of offerings I would and wouldn't be interested in.
today you ignore banners, probably never saw a tv ad, but is raised on disney movies selling a franchise and consume social feed that tell you about all the products that ended up in your home
And conversely, if you don't own an asset that redirects a massive amount of attention, you can't launch any kind of product without getting help from someone who does (whether you call that help advertising or not).
lots of people have heard about AIM, but it didn't save AOL
If I walk down the street and someone hands me a flyer that says: new shop open at X! Come now for discount.
I'd consider that fair advertising. But what happens on the internet nowadays is more like this:
"Hello. Our cameras saw you stared into the windows at shop X, Y and Z. Our system also noticed you are walking slower than usual and your phone regularely turned on during the last 3 nights. Are you not sleeping well? Get a better bed! Come to this shop."
That is basically how intrusive online ads are. And I have absolutely 0,00 regret about taking meassures to block this 24/7 subconscious priming from my life.
If content creators don't like this they should find a different business model.
Then they introduced subscriptions around 1994 to all channels, but kept adverts.
I don't subscribe to sky, but I used to, until I saw that the revenue from advertising was tiny - by increasing subscription prices by 10% they could get rid of adverts and remain revenue neutral.
If you don't offer an advert free product I won't buy it. When Netflix and amazon inevitably start adverts, I'll go back to DVDs. If they aren't available then torrents it is.
Advertising is a scourge on civilisation, it costs trillions of dollars in lost time each year in the US alone.
I am positive that day will come. Soon enough. Unfortunately.
If they don't they're idiots. Remember there's plenty of competiton for entertainment nowadays.
Others I'm very interested in trying - Warby Parker, Away Travel, Linode and Fracture come to mind.
I can't think of a single podcast ad that I think is total rubbish.
On the same note, Marco Arment created his own podcast ad platform for his Overcast podcast player that is unobtrusive, informative and I actually consider it feature.
Podcast ads and the direct response model must be working because the same companies are represented in most of the popular tech podcasts year after year. They have metrics to know exactly which podcasts generate traffic.
Google and Facebook are going to stop growing in the next ten years which means unless cars start driving themselves soon, the gravy train is coming to a screeching halt.
That’ll be a site to see.
Personally I don't mind advertorials if they have a subject I am interested in. Native advertising is better than a full page ad taking over the screen.
IMAGINE a world in which you are manipulated
by intelligent advertisements from dusk until
dawn.
It may sound outlandish, but this dystopia is
increasingly what stockmarket investors are
banking on.
Day-to-day spending also is not swayed by advertisements. There are real reasons behind the choices I make, and those ideas, opinions and motivations don't source their information from advertisers. I'm not charmed by entreaties that pander to my niche demographic.
Advertising has one rare utility, in shedding light on things that are new. The cliche being that everything is "new and improved" if you believe what ads are trying to sell you.
The people that try new things are the targets, and learning who will try something new, and who will spread positive word-of-mouth endorsements, is the holy grail of advertising, but realistically most people do research and find real evidence, before parting with their money.
Ads can notify a person of presence, but in practice, people really do operate carefully before accepting invitations to buy, or R.S.V.P. with their wallets.
Meanwhile, the effects of advertising result in a net profit for the producer.
Ok. Fair enough. But how can you be certain where you do source your info from isn't influenced by advertisers?
Long to short, we are what we consume. Unless you grew up in a Skinner Box and have since kept your mind in a (metaphorical) Feraday Cage, it's hard to imagine you haven't been influenced in some way, at some time; and likely without even being conscious of it.
Two thoughts:
1. I doubt you have enough self-awareness about your unconscious product reasoning (and more importantly, which products you decide to reason about) to be capable of asserting advertising doesn’t “work” on you. Abstractly speaking, if you buy toilet paper, and you don’t search for the the most efficiently priced toilet paper with respect to your criteria, advertising has “worked” on you. Just because you don’t buy the mega brand doesn’t mean it hasn’t worked on you. Buying Kirkland from Costco also implies the advertising has worked (for example).
2. That you believe you are resistant to advertising places you in a predictable demographic that, like all demographics, can be successfully targeted without it being spotted as advertising. Advertising generalizes to delivering a feeling of trust, familiarity and ingroup agreement; which brands do you buy consistently? Which do you trust? Did you do an empirical, feature-driven search for all of the products from these brands? Does any brand stand out? Do you switch brands to extremely similar, essentially indistinguishable products when there are minute changes in price? If not, why?
I think you need to broaden your perspective on what an advertiser considers “working” to mean for an ad campaign, and what they count as a win. Advertising encompasses incredibly more than just click-to-buy decisions, and I think it would be virtually impossible for you to honestly separate confirmation bias from your perception of how impression-optimized advertisements have impacted you. Your “niche demographic” is not the only demographic you fit into, and if anything being part of a niche demographic makes you (very nearly definitionally) easier to target for campaigns.
At some point, if one needs to buy toilet paper, one needs to buy something. Just because you ended up buying one doesn't mean that the one you bought was due to advertising. Advertising doesn't become the reason for a purchase over availability, economic value, etc just by virtue of existing.
> 2. That you believe you are resistant to advertising places you in a predictable demographic that, like all demographics, can be successfully targeted without it being spotted as advertising.
Yes, the "I'd like to be left the fuck alone to make my own decisions" category, that advertising, despite it's apparent infinite wisdom still hasn't managed to figure out.
> Did you do an empirical, feature-driven search for all of the products from these brands? Does any brand stand out?
This is not a feature of advertising. This is a feature of product quality/price/feature-set etc. Advertising is independent of this and will happily lie you to in order to make you buy product x instead of y. To suggest that you actually bought product x instead of y is due to the effect of the advertising and not literally any other factor is disingenuous.
> 1. I doubt you have enough self-awareness about your unconscious product reasoning
This is a bit of a broad and unfair statement, it doesn't require too much concerted critical thinking to be aware of the tactics that advertisers use. Even if you're not fully immune from them, being aware of them can significantly reduce their effectiveness and restore a good degree of agency to you.
I avoid adverts as much as possible, but I'm not naive that they don't have an affect on me, or that I even realise I'm being subjected to adverts. just looking out of the plane window I can see wall to wall Hsbc adverts, they were also on the jetway. HSBC spend a lot of money to say "they aren't going any where", "they're a globally trusted brand", etc.
I don't bank with HSBC, but I don't need to be persuaded by those adverts - if I am asked about a bank, HSBC is one of the first that springs to mind, burnt into my subconscious. That may be worth something in the future. En mass it certainly is.
I just got back from an overseas holiday, so I too saw a lot of HSBC ads at airports. But I also actively disregarded them, of someone asked me for a bank, they would not spring to mind. Even moreso because I was reading a thread on Reddit the other day where someone was talking about how HSBC's strategy was to advertise primarily at airports even if they didn't operate in that country because it makes people think they're a global brand (even when and where they're not). So now, if I do think about HSBC the first thing that pops into my head is how their outdoor advertising is built on a lie.
My most recent car insurance was purchased because the banker at the bank where I met the guy selling me his used (Honda) car asked me, and I went with that one. You could argue it was marketing, but it definitely wasn't advertising--I had no idea the name of the company until I got the letter in the mail. I do think of Geico, but that's because I am a fan of Warren Buffett, and his annual reports constantly laud Geico. But the website requires you to request a quote, which is too much hassle ("if you have to ask, you can't afford it," I figure). After I have thought of Geico I think of the commercials, but that's not the order that advertising is supposed to work.
The first mobile phone plan I think of is AT&T because they were the only carrier with the first iPhone. (However, I did subsequently switch to Verizon because I had evidence from talking to people, especially my brother, that "more bars in more places" was actually true, so you could argue that advertising factored in there, but it was really more that T-Mobile had such terrible reception at my apartment and AT&T was too expensive, and my brother said Verizon was the only option in the middle of nowhere where he was living.)
Now I don't watch TV, don't even own one, so I will have less influence than most. But, still.
1) Your sources of information are advertisers (Google and facebook) - why are they trustworthy?
2) The huge database in your behavior is so easily exploitable for evil it boggles the mind. Ever read any science fiction?
3) Even if you are rational and unafraid of surveillance (nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?)... Advertising makes your purchases more expensive. That should make you especially angry, since it is so useless (according to you).
People are not rational, they buy on emotions and random facts and influences from friends and folks on the internet. You claim to be the perfect objective consumer who never gets affected but the data (petabytes of it everyday in an industry that's absolutely run by numbers) proves otherwise.