I recently read an article in Database Marketing Magazine by Paul
Kennedy about the myths and reality of data (online version here).
In it Kennedy suggests, and I paraphrase, that consumers would rather see
offers and advertising online which is of relevance to them than generic
advertisements, a point often made. Is this assertion true?
I don’t have any figures which support or refute this, but naturally
the answer to a question depends on the question being asked. I suspect that
given a choice most people would simply rather see less or no advertising than
relevant advertising, or would rather see advertising of any type which is
easier to distinguish from content than what is currently on offer. But most people
also understand that the current financial model for online content is to
provide it for “free”, paid for by advertising and often in exchange for
people’s personal data. Without advertising the larger online companies
wouldn’t be so rich and those of us with a smaller online presence wouldn’t
still be in business.
Regardless, I’m not one of those who wants to see relevant
advertising. And I’ll tell you for why.
When I receive mail, or an e-mail, from a company, then I
like the offer to be relevant to me, to be of interest, because I am offended
by the waste involved, in time and resources, when it isn’t. But when it isn’t
I can easily take action. I can dispose of the communication, which is a separate
unit which I can choose to pick up and read when I want to, or discard, and
then forget about. In many countries legislation exists which would allow me to
turn these communications off. When the advertising block starts on the TV, I
can turn it off, turn the sound down, or walk away for the duration. The
advertising is isolated from the content (though increasingly less so), and
that gives me, the consumer, the power of choice.
Upselling in mailings, such as with orders or statements,
has been around for a while, but at least it is generally in distinct units – I
can discard the guff and concentrate on the content. Up to now no company has
tried to upsell to me on the same piece of paper as the invoice etc. with which
it was enclosed, and let’s hope that that doesn’t happen.
Online advertising is different. It is pervasive and invasive. It doesn’t form
a separate unit which I can view or ignore, as appropriate. It is woven into any content that I have
actively sought out, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish
as advertising. It is intrusive and sometimes so invasive that its purpose is
defeated. A well-disguised audio advertisement on a page will have me backing
out of that page as fast as my mouse can reach the button, surely to the
detriment of the content provider. No legislation exists to allow me to view my
content without advertising. It’s the equivalent of being sent a bank statement
and then trying to find and view my account balance amongst the advertisements
for fast cars and Ukrainian mail-order brides.
Unthinkable offline, but run of the mill online.
Online advertising is often dishonest. It lies or disguises
itself as content to attract my click which, whilst profitable in the
short-term for the pay-per-click provider, won’t help a brand in any way in the
consumers’ eyes. I’ve seen pop-up advertisements in mobile apps with either no
close button or one which is so small that a human finger will often miss it.
Emphasis on what adverts are shown is placed on the person
viewing a page, which is why online advertisers are so keen to find out all
they can about you and I. Why there isn’t more emphasis on the content we are
looking for and looking at is a mystery to me.
If I’m looking at a page of reviews for hotels in London, then
advertisements for hotels in London would probably be a better bet to get my
click than ones trying to sell me a lawnmower. Once I leave those hotel pages and
move on, though, I don’t want to be continuously subjected to adverts for hotels
in London – that was then. I’ve moved on. Shouldn’t the advertising move on
with me?
When I go online to look for something, a new watch for
example, then I would like to see information about watches when I’m looking
for it. Just as I would choose to go to a jewellers to find a watch when
visiting my nearest shopping centre. Once I’ve left that shop/search, though,
do I still want to be constantly marketed to about watches? Do I want to read
about watches when I’m shopping for a fire extinguisher, or reading the news,
or chatting to friends? Why would I welcome that distraction? Fine to see
something while I’m looking for that product – it’s fair game that, if I’m
looking for a watch you want me to buy yours – but afterwards? There are
tracking cookies, more like stalking cookies actually, which keep presenting
the items you viewed in one site on other pages you might visit. Amazon does this. It’s like walking out of the jewellers and
having somebody follow you shouting a constant refrain of “BUY THE WATCH! BUY THE WATCH! YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO! BUY THE
WATCH” until you either give in or, like me, find and change the tracking
preferences for that retailer.
So, as advertising is there and isn’t going away, do I want
the advertising I see online to be relevant and “interesting” to me, in the
same way as with direct mail?
No.
I’m clearly not the target of most online advertising, which
is aimed at people who are as lax with their purse strings as they are with
their personal data, but I don’t want online advertising to be relevant to me
because, if I can’t choose whether and when to view it, then I’d like to be
able to block it out as easily as possible. Whilst the pages I view are full of
advertisements for cars, singles matching sites, holidays in the sun, football
tat and flat rentals, in language(s) I don’t speak and none of which have any
relevance to me at all, I can concentrate on the site’s content without
distraction. This also reassures me that either companies haven’t got much personal
data about me, or they don’t know how to use it. Either way, that’s fine by me!
No comments:
Post a Comment