Re:The death of advertising authenticity
by mcantor on Tuesday October 06, 2009 @02:48PM
(#864899)
What's with all of the sensationalist titles recently? I'm starting to learn to avoid any article whose title sounds like "the death of," "the most amazing," "the end of", "x is the new y," "the biggest," "the _____ your business will fail without," and so forth. It's patronizing and offensive. Thank you, but I will decide for myself exactly how bombastic your content is. The revelation that buying ads next to spammers makes your business seem less legitimate is not the "death" of anything except the 2 minutes I spent reading it.
Re:The death of advertising authenticity
by ccc3 on Tuesday October 06, 2009 @01:53PM
(#864749)
The article makes a good point, but I don't think I'd call it the death of authenticity. A deceptive banner ad is just the new version of a fast-talking door-to-door salesman. It's the method of reaching consumers with the lowest barrier to entry, and that's why it is so popular with the inauthentic.
In the days of expensive print advertising, the investment required to take out an ad was often enough of a barrier to legitimize a business to consumers. The model has changed, but I believe consumers are still looking for companies that make some kind of investment to prove their authenticity. The new version of the expensive print ad is the investment in time and effort required to gain the trust of industry experts and influencers.
Re:The death of advertising authenticity
by stingraycharles on Tuesday October 06, 2009 @02:37PM
(#864871)
The article makes a good point, but I don't think I'd call it the death of authenticity. A deceptive banner ad is just the new version of a fast-talking door-to-door salesman. It's the method of reaching consumers with the lowest barrier to entry, and that's why it is so popular with the inauthentic.
That is a good point. On top of it, it is merely a matter of choice: you can still make "authentic" ads online, but just because the internet doesn't require you to do so, you see so many inauthentic ads online.
I personally still vividly remember that Nintendo WII ad that ran on youtube about a year ago, which played a youtube video and after a few seconds the whole page started to fall apart ("shake it", see: http://mikeabundo.com/2008/09/25/shaking-wii-youtube-ad/). That is quality online advertising, and it has just as good an effect as quality TV advertising.
Re:The death of advertising authenticity
by rantfoil on Tuesday October 06, 2009 @08:14PM
(#865714)
If we want to talk about media, then a door-to-door salesman isn't quite the right analogy. I think the closest analogy would be the Pennysaver or those throwaway used car classifieds that you find at supermarkets. But the point is that is now everywhere.
All online advertising has become the Pennysaver. And that's significant.
Jason L Baptiste brings up a good point though: there are still places where premium ads may make sense. Email lists like Thrillist, etc. are a bright spot.
But even then, paid placement can hurt instead of help. If I'm a nightclub venue and Thrillist could have covered my venue as a legitimate story, I would prefer that 10 times out of 10 over having to pay for placement, which invariably still signals that I need to advertise. (Undercurrent: Only low-status businesses need to advertise.)
Re:The death of advertising authenticity
by biohacker42 on Tuesday October 06, 2009 @03:20PM
(#864972)
This is just plain wrong. The authenticity provided by expensive spending is still there. When something becomes cheap to buy (advertising in papers) and its authenticity had been based on it being expensive, well then it's authenticity is gone along with its high prices.
When something reliably vets its advertisers, that can have greater authenticity then is provided simply by high add rates. For example, TWIT and PA and many other blogs/podcasts/comics vet their advertisers. And their audience trusts them and extends that trust to the advertisers - priceless.
Re:The death of advertising authenticity
by rantfoil on Tuesday October 06, 2009 @07:41PM
(#865657)
Is that really true?
With many web services, if I have to see an ad for it, then my perception of it actually goes down somewhat. If it was that good, would I need to see an ad for it?
Re:The death of advertising authenticity
by biohacker42 on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @09:28AM
(#866648)
Word of mouth has always been considered among the best and most valuable forms of advertising. Thus it is no wonder that if you're used to finding new web services from word of mouth, then seeing an anonymous advertisement will not be nearly as good.
Re:The death of advertising authenticity
by JCThoughtscream on Tuesday October 06, 2009 @01:27PM
(#864671)
Somewhat simplistically stated, but nonetheless rings true. The ease in which you can slap together a simple banner ad, or rig up some cheap, malware-infested flash game, has rather seriously impacted the reputation of online advertisers.
Somewhere along the way, marketing forces've forgotten that reputation is often just as important as exposure - that there is, in fact, such thing as bad publicity. At least, in the long-term.
Re:The death of advertising authenticity
by unalone on Tuesday October 06, 2009 @01:50PM
(#864736)
That's not the death of authenticity. That's oversaturation. That's a lot of people cynically turning marketing from something useful and benevolent into a wasteful game.
Organic growth is the real goal of advertising. When you make an ad, what you should be doing is figuring out what people need and telling them how your thing will help them. You get a customer, they find a service. Win-win. Advertisers do more than that, and they profit in the short- and middle-term, but that sort of thing is doomed to fail as people grow wiser.
Re:The death of advertising authenticity
by zaidf on Tuesday October 06, 2009 @02:18PM
(#864814)
I am a fan of authenticity, after all it's hard not to be. But I just don't know (a) how important it is (b) what it even means, especially as your company grows.
Where's the "authenticity" in the biggest corporations making tonnes of money? And does not having authenticity make you unauthentic? I am not sure.
Is authenticity another way of saying if your product rocks, you won't need to do marketing? True in some cases, not so in others.
Re:The death of advertising authenticity
by joe_the_user on Tuesday October 06, 2009 @01:41PM
(#864712)
Another point, though, is that the Internet is actually making harder to buy legitimacy -- and all to the good.
We know the successful story in Internet ads is not the banner ads but the Google text ads. Text ads aren't for buying legitimacy but for spreading information. Those with something of inherent value just want to tell you about it. Those who sell carbonated corn syrup they associate with a "life style" want to buy legitimacy. Which is better?
In the days of expensive print advertising, the investment required to take out an ad was often enough of a barrier to legitimize a business to consumers. The model has changed, but I believe consumers are still looking for companies that make some kind of investment to prove their authenticity. The new version of the expensive print ad is the investment in time and effort required to gain the trust of industry experts and influencers.
That is a good point. On top of it, it is merely a matter of choice: you can still make "authentic" ads online, but just because the internet doesn't require you to do so, you see so many inauthentic ads online.
I personally still vividly remember that Nintendo WII ad that ran on youtube about a year ago, which played a youtube video and after a few seconds the whole page started to fall apart ("shake it", see: http://mikeabundo.com/2008/09/25/shaking-wii-youtube-ad/). That is quality online advertising, and it has just as good an effect as quality TV advertising.
All online advertising has become the Pennysaver. And that's significant.
Jason L Baptiste brings up a good point though: there are still places where premium ads may make sense. Email lists like Thrillist, etc. are a bright spot.
But even then, paid placement can hurt instead of help. If I'm a nightclub venue and Thrillist could have covered my venue as a legitimate story, I would prefer that 10 times out of 10 over having to pay for placement, which invariably still signals that I need to advertise. (Undercurrent: Only low-status businesses need to advertise.)
When something reliably vets its advertisers, that can have greater authenticity then is provided simply by high add rates. For example, TWIT and PA and many other blogs/podcasts/comics vet their advertisers. And their audience trusts them and extends that trust to the advertisers - priceless.
With many web services, if I have to see an ad for it, then my perception of it actually goes down somewhat. If it was that good, would I need to see an ad for it?
See Mozy vs Dropbox, for instance.
Somewhere along the way, marketing forces've forgotten that reputation is often just as important as exposure - that there is, in fact, such thing as bad publicity. At least, in the long-term.
Organic growth is the real goal of advertising. When you make an ad, what you should be doing is figuring out what people need and telling them how your thing will help them. You get a customer, they find a service. Win-win. Advertisers do more than that, and they profit in the short- and middle-term, but that sort of thing is doomed to fail as people grow wiser.
Where's the "authenticity" in the biggest corporations making tonnes of money? And does not having authenticity make you unauthentic? I am not sure.
Is authenticity another way of saying if your product rocks, you won't need to do marketing? True in some cases, not so in others.
We know the successful story in Internet ads is not the banner ads but the Google text ads. Text ads aren't for buying legitimacy but for spreading information. Those with something of inherent value just want to tell you about it. Those who sell carbonated corn syrup they associate with a "life style" want to buy legitimacy. Which is better?