"Good" Advertising
The mobile internet survey from the Economist raises quite a few interesting questions, and one that immediately stuck out regards advertising:
1. Now, my first reaction is to be petrified; I make a huge effort to protect my e-mail address from spammers, but now I could be bombarded on my cell phone? The image I get is from that scene in Minority Report when Tom Cruise is walking through the mall and every single store he passes calls out to him by name with personalized appeals (after identifying him through an eye-scan, of course; thankfully we're nowhere near there--right?).
But then there is another part of me that wouldn't mind the advertising, provided it were helpful. I remember reading an article on TIVO a few years back (no idea where though, so sorry for no link), and one point that stuck was that TIVO was hoping that after recording the viewing habits of a typical user, they could direct advertising to the user that was only on products he or she was interested in. One could see how advertisers would drool over such a concept, as they could target much more specifically than the broad demographics they currently use.
Similarly to the Economist article, my first reaction was somewhat outraged; what about privacy? But then I thought about how nice it would be to no longer see ads for products I would never, ever buy. So long, Ditech!
2. The rise of opt-in advertising is another corollary to the phone-advertising concept. Every wednesday I get an e-mail from Harris Teeter showing my the items I normally buy that are on sale this week. To get it, I had to sign up at their website and use my VIC card when I shop. It's a little weird thinking about how they know everything I've bought over the past year, but in the end I think it's worth it: I find out easily when there are sales on items I normally buy, and it's not like they're going to steal my identify with the info they collect. So they know what brand of pasta I buy. Big deal.
So perhaps mobile advertising could have an upside if it were controlled properly. I'd have to imagine that there would be a massive consumer revolt if our cell phones were completely opened up to any and all advertising, so hopefully an opt-in system could be standardized. Advertising can be a good thing when it introduces you to something you want and/or need, so I just hope the greed of the advertisers could be managed in a way that allows all sides to win from the exchange. Of course, most people would probably opt-out of political advertisements on their cell phone, but they'd probably just write in an exception for political messages like they do with the do-not-call list.
The appeal of mobile phones to advertisers is obvious: they are personal devices, they spend all day with their owners, and their whereabouts are known. Proponents of location-based marketing see all sorts of mouth-watering opportunities. Someone walking down the street might be alerted by his phone to special offers from nearby shops; or everyone attending a pop concert might have a coupon offering a discount on CDs sent to their phones. Frost & Sullivan, a consultancy, predicts that by 2005 some 37 billion advertisements and alerts will be sent to mobile devices in Europe, and that 65% of users will be prepared to receive ads in this way. Such messages are expected to be worth $7.4 billion in revenues.
1. Now, my first reaction is to be petrified; I make a huge effort to protect my e-mail address from spammers, but now I could be bombarded on my cell phone? The image I get is from that scene in Minority Report when Tom Cruise is walking through the mall and every single store he passes calls out to him by name with personalized appeals (after identifying him through an eye-scan, of course; thankfully we're nowhere near there--right?).
But then there is another part of me that wouldn't mind the advertising, provided it were helpful. I remember reading an article on TIVO a few years back (no idea where though, so sorry for no link), and one point that stuck was that TIVO was hoping that after recording the viewing habits of a typical user, they could direct advertising to the user that was only on products he or she was interested in. One could see how advertisers would drool over such a concept, as they could target much more specifically than the broad demographics they currently use.
Similarly to the Economist article, my first reaction was somewhat outraged; what about privacy? But then I thought about how nice it would be to no longer see ads for products I would never, ever buy. So long, Ditech!
2. The rise of opt-in advertising is another corollary to the phone-advertising concept. Every wednesday I get an e-mail from Harris Teeter showing my the items I normally buy that are on sale this week. To get it, I had to sign up at their website and use my VIC card when I shop. It's a little weird thinking about how they know everything I've bought over the past year, but in the end I think it's worth it: I find out easily when there are sales on items I normally buy, and it's not like they're going to steal my identify with the info they collect. So they know what brand of pasta I buy. Big deal.
So perhaps mobile advertising could have an upside if it were controlled properly. I'd have to imagine that there would be a massive consumer revolt if our cell phones were completely opened up to any and all advertising, so hopefully an opt-in system could be standardized. Advertising can be a good thing when it introduces you to something you want and/or need, so I just hope the greed of the advertisers could be managed in a way that allows all sides to win from the exchange. Of course, most people would probably opt-out of political advertisements on their cell phone, but they'd probably just write in an exception for political messages like they do with the do-not-call list.
posted by Mike D at
6/06/2005 11:26:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home