Repeat After Me: Advertising Need Not Be Intrusive
from the it's-a-myth dept
For years and years we've been trying to shoot down the myth that advertising needs to be intrusive. As has been shown again and again and again, when the advertisers recognize that ads are content they don't need to be intrusive at all. Rather, they can become viral, as people not only seek them out, but actively distribute and promote the advertisements for you. This is especially true in a world where there is no captive audience. Thinking that ads need to be somehow intrusive is only bound to cause trouble long term. However, it's tough to get rid of old habits in the ad industry, apparently. The Washington Post is running an article looking at the latest in intrusive online advertising, made up of ads that dance across your screen and try to capture your attention. The article repeats the myth of intrusive advertising, claiming that the holy grail is avoiding "too intrusive" and finding the ad that is "just intrusive enough." That's the wrong way to think about it. While it may be a step forward that advertisers are finally recognizing there's such a thing as "too intrusive," they'd be much better off recognizing that they can succeed without being intrusive at all. In fact, as you read the article, what becomes clear is the successful intrusive ads aren't successful because they're intrusive, but because they're actually engaging.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
www.shaveeverywhere.com
best viral marketing ever
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So true
I so wish that these so called advertising gurus would wake up and realise that by attacking people you actually drive them away.
Sure you will get the gullible suckers who believe all those stupid pop-ups and make-believe scenes....but...you are not fooling the next geners who can smell a internet rat from a mile away....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Most of the time when I get an ad like this I dont even see what it is for I just look for the small X that lets me close it...
But if I do see what the ad is for I have never bought anything it advertised just because they already annoyed me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Intrusive ads are actually a turn off to me. If a company has to resort to damn near forcing to watch their ad then chances are the product isn't worth it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
By and large, ads are intrusive when they are not relevant to their audience. Once relevant, they have content value. The answer is, send the right ads to the right people.
Good post! Intrusive advertising is an old habit of the ad industry that is having trouble dying.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
And that's why I have NoScript added on to my Firefox copy, and will add FlashBlock if I ever decide to install the Flash plug-in...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
AIM
I know AOL has used very intrusive ads in their IM program. That is one of the main reasons I stopped using the program altogether. So not only was the advertising ineffective but it caused them to loose a customer, and I am also very active about telling people about alternative IM clients because of the ads. Andy you couldn't be righter. I think one more thing that companies have to realize is that the internet isn't just used for buying things. Sometimes we just want a quiet session of talking to our friends or sending an e-mail or researching something. We don't want or have time to worry about buying something whether we need it or not.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
bla
bla
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment