Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...

[Ankesh]

Thanks TW.

I recently read this article:

Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It's this: Facts don't necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

And yet I'm going to try... Sigh!

Google vs Facebook.

Facebook recently overtook Google and became the most popular website on the interwebs.
But it still makes nowhere near as much $$ as Google does.
More traffic. Fewer transactions.

Don't know what it does with your basic truism. But balance sheets like those don't lie.

Originally Posted by -TW

Basic truism (I came up with) -- "The initial spark that leads to the vast majority of transactions, emanates from the marketER, not the marketEE."
(which is *the opposite* of what most marketEEs (consumers) naturally (+ MISTAKENLY) believe.

(sorry, Ankesh)

-- TW

Anyways...

The argument shouldn't be about where the ad or the transaction originates from. Or even whether the ad is intrusive* or not. But just on whether the ad / marketing is effective for You or not.

* You can be intrusive and interrupt folks to win their attention. Or you could be unique and win their attention. Like this footnote shows, you don't necessary have to be loud or in-your-face to make an impact. After all - this is the most closely scrutinized paragraph of this entire thread - and all because of its small different font size and the usage of asterisk.

Your marketing differs a lot on whether you're producing a movie or running a plumbing business.

Before you even create an ad, you need to know things like how do people make decisions to consume what you provide. How often they require your services. Do they ever know when they require your help? Or do you have to educate them? Based on that - you decide if you should take a passive brand building approach and build a reputation. Or if you should actively take a direct marketing approach. Or more likely - if you should use a mix of both.

I make the distinction between (what I call):

"If-you-need-it-you-need-it-if-you-don't-you-don't" types of biz's

vs.

"NON-if-you-need-it-you-need-it-if-you-don't-you-don't" types of biz's

If a biz is in the former category (like a towing company), intrusive advertising probably won't help.

If a biz is in the latter category, intrusive advertising probably WILL help (a lot!).

(hint: if there are many, many full-page ads in the yellow pages for a particular biz type, it's probably in the 1st category)

Problem is, many biz owners THINK they're in the 1st category, when they are really in the second.

Problem is made worse because most biz owners think like marketEEs -- believing the falsehood: The initial spark that leads to the vast majority of transactions emanates from the marketEE (not the marketER) -- This misguided belief is usually exemplified by this declaration...

"BACK OFF marketers! If *I* want to buy something, *I* will go out, and *I* will find it (myself)!! Your attempts to intrusively advertise to/AT me, have NO EFFECT on my buying decision(s)!! I will behave in EXACTLY the same way, with or WITHOUT your intrusive advertising!!"

Those statements are absolute nonsense -- and successful marketERs understand they are nonsense.

-- TW

Try to watch a Yahoo News video online, and you're likely to run into this...

"Your video will begin after a word from our sponsors." (aka: an intrusive COMMERCIAL)

This will (by NECESSITY) increase to the point where (I predict) your entire websurfing experience will be *interrupted* (every 1/2 hour or 15-minutes?) by UNavoidable commercials (like on TV). Actually if/WHEN such intrusive commercials are in place on the web, they will be MORE effective than TV ads, because they must be 'experienced' in a straight line (time-wise), and CANNOT be 'skipped past,' as with a DVR!!

Adding intrusive, unavoidable commercials to the websurfing experience is a natural progression (because the money comes from intrusive ads (they produce more transactions) -- and without money, nothing happens).

Again, the intended audience(s) cannot be *permitted* to avoid the ads (if capitalism is to survive).

-- TW

I look at my email until the internet commercials are over.

Originally Posted by -TW

Try to watch a Yahoo News video online, and you're likely to run into this...

"Your video will begin after a word from our sponsors." (aka: an intrusive COMMERCIAL)

This will (by NECESSITY) increase to the point where (I predict) your entire websurfing experience will be *interrupted* (every 1/2 hour or 15-minutes?) by UNavoidable commercials (like on TV). Actually if/WHEN such intrusive commercials are in place on the web, they will be MORE effective than TV ads, because they must be 'experienced' in a straight line (time-wise), and CANNOT be 'skipped past,' as with a DVR!!

Adding intrusive, unavoidable commercials to the websurfing experience is a natural progression (because the money comes from intrusive ads (they produce more transactions) -- and without money, nothing happens).

Again, the intended audience(s) cannot be *permitted* to avoid the ads (if capitalism is to survive).

-- TW

Will agree to Bill, I mean you can do others things while the commercial is rolling. It is just the same what we do watching TV, when the commercial pops, that is the cue to stand up and go to the bathroom..