R-E-L-E-V-A-N-C-E Find out what it means to me

[by Todd] Wow talk about missing the boat! Writing on ClickZ, fellow Texan, Dave Evans rises to the defense of Philip's technology to block you from changing channels during commercials.

Have I cracked? Not at all. We have an expression in Texas: "Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant." It fits this case. All Philips is really saying is, "Give consumers the same choice on TV as they've had online for 10 years: free online service with ads or for-pay without ads. They'll tell you what they want to watch and what they don't. Likewise, they'll tell you what they are willing to pay for and what they aren't."
 

Dave, we have another expression in my part of Texas, bulls@#*. Not only is this a bad idea, it is brand suicide for any company thinking about trying it. For one thing, this is nothing like the concept of ad-supported content online.

See that little image to the left? Notice the pull out text? Virtually every interstitial has an option to allow users to move on. Disable that and I assure you traffic to those sites using the ads would drop sharply.

There's a reason consumers are flocking to TiVo, XM radio and a slew of other technologies that let them filter out the advertising noise. They've had enough.

Actually that's not entirely correct. They've had enough of ads that launch an assault on their senses with irrelevant messages. Watch a couple hours of any commercial sponsored network and think about the ads you see.

Not shopping for a car right now? Too bad. Don't have teenagers running around your house? Tough luck. Hour after hour, viewers are bombarded with ads that have no relevance to their lives. So no wonder they jump at the chance to have a button that will let them blow through the ads.

The Internet has proven powerful for advertisers because their messages can be delivered in a far more relevant environment. Users volunteer information on sites in order to personalize the experience. In turn sites can segment the audience for advertisers. So savvy marketers aren't going to hit me with a message for the winter road-handling abilities of the new Audi. And if they do, I am gone in a click.

Which brings me back to the fallacy of Mr. Evan's argument -- that consumers will show their dissatisfaction with advertisers by not watching shows they sponsor. Wouldn't it be far better if we could show our dissatisfaction with advertisers by not watching their ads?

Indeed the future looks bright for our option to choose just that. Not only are DVRs growing more powerful, but technology is arming advertisers with the ability to get more focused with their message. Tools such as Visible World allow marketers today to customize their messages as narrowly as the segments maintained by cable systems, typically by zip code.  AT&T's U-verse, now in test, promises to let marketers narrow down to the individual home.

As tools like these take root it's not much of stretch that we get to the point where consumers will actually tell us what they want to hear about. If I'm shopping for a new car, then bring on the ads. If my daughters are thinking about yet another pair of cute jeans, then have at us. Those will be ads certain not to be skipped in my home.

Marketers will learn that giving consumers relevant messages is far more effective than holding them hostage. Smart agencies will learn, rapidly, that developing television advertising in this environment is much more like creating a direct mail campaign than a Hollywood movie. (And, likely, far more profitable.)

And consumers will learn, even more rapidly, to punish those who do not.

Comments

[Ted]

It's a double edged sword. If the agencies want to serve up relevant ads, they need a way to track what users dis/like. But every time someone tries that,everyone shouts "ahhhh! My privacy!" and the whole effort falls apart. If it meant TiVo knowing what ads I actually watch vs showing me crap, I'd take having them track my viewing habits. But it'll never happen.