Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 346

quote:

---

Originally posted by KittenKaboodle
I think the problem with the kind of advertising being discussed is that it seems deceitful.
When an advertisement runs on television, everyone knows it's an advertisement.
When you see a billboard or hear a commercial on radio you know someone's being paid to try to sell you something.
But the tactics used in 'viral marketing' put people on guard, make them suspicious, and may even provoke negative responses from consumers.
How effective will this 'new' approach to advertising be, do you think?

---

I agree with you about the deceitful aspect of this, and that is why I noticed it on 60 Minutes (as described below). It bothered me somewhat. And sadly, this subversive intrusion will only create mistrust, as you say.

I think your point about "knowing it's an advertisement" is exactly why the target market isn't responsive to such advertising. They understand that the opinion is biased in paid advertising. IMO, that is how this type of low-level marketing seems to have come about. For now, the responsible parties believe it to be effective.

Your comment about provoking negative responses is, I believe, what the OP is trying for. Ideally that would work. I just don't believe it will, due to the lessons learned from e-mail SPAM. But I'd love to be wrong!

I posted this on the other "Bizarre Advertising" thread, but I think it's appropriate here, too...

-----------------------------------

I saw a segment on 60 Minutes about the new generation (X, Y, Z, AA?---sorry, I can't remember the initial for this latest gen they were talking about! ). This is the generation that the WB network targets their programming to.

Anyway, they said one of the characteristics of this youngest upcoming generation is that they do not trust traditional advertising venues (i.e., television, etc.). Instead, they trust word from their "friends" as to what to pick, etc. This generation is very internet savvy, and their "friends" can be found on messaging boards and forums.

One of the things in this segment that I thought was interesting, was the interview with a couple of major advertisers to see how they are combatting this trend, since the younger generations are prime marketing targets (high disposable income, etc.). The advertisers indicated that they are taking their advertising "to the streets" to get their message across. This included sponsoring local sports competitions, extreme sports, and also getting onto the forums to push their message!

Personally, I didn't think Ctv would be targeting this group to advertise, but since this is the prime demographic right now maybe they are! Certainly KGN and VP, and some of the younger commentators might appeal to this youngest generation.

All of this is IMO, based upon what I saw on 60 Minutes...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Into Mischief
Posts: 102

quote:

---

Originally posted by JMO4now
...Your comment about provoking negative responses is, I believe, what the OP is trying for. Ideally that would work. I just don't believe it will, due to the lessons learned from e-mail SPAM. But I'd love to be wrong!...

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2004
Location:
Posts: 9

quote:

---

Originally posted by KittenKaboodle
Is e-mail SPAM effective?
With so many people trying to block SPAM, one would think it's not very effective.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 346

quote:

---

Originally posted by livius drusus


It's possible, but I don't think it's likely. There are lots and lots of forums out there, and most of them are run by individuals with shared interests, not coporations with platoons of litigators on retainer. That's one of the reasons posting once on 3000 message boards is so effective: who's going to sue you over one post? A ban is so much easier.

...And e-mail is quite often individuals, as individual forums are often run by individuals, but it is the corporations rich enough to sue that are getting the laws changed. I am simply saying that lawsuits will likely happen... after all, the high-profile corporate forums are going to be the Ca$h Cows for the viral advertisers, so when it becomes enough of a stress on these forums to sue they will do so, IMO. And the individuals will be bound by whatever court decisions result.

E-mail SPAMming is also effective in bulk, and as an individual I certainly can't afford to take that on in court. I just wish people wouldn't respond to SPAM, in which case the SPAMmers wouldn't waste their time. You're right, a ban is easier, and as far as e-mail spam I tried my own personal "banning" by setting up filters. It got so bad that I was spending hours setting up the filters, and ultimately the personal mailbox was not worth my time. I left the e-mail world for a while. When people start leaving sponsored forums due to this, I believe the corporate sponsors who can afford to do so WILL sue.

All IMO.


I haven't seen the viral posters soliciting product referrals.
IMO, by nature an advertisement is a product referral.


Um... You're the only one making the argument with which I disagree, yes, but I don't think charcaterizing my responses as arguing is particularly accurate.

I would be little more receptive if you would quit picking at semantics. It's annoying and makes your responses seem abrasive. If you would kindly agree to do this, I think we will get along fine!

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 346

quote:

---

Originally posted by corona688
The issue is consent. If you deliberately invited commercial advertisements, then they're not spam. Outlawing spam doesn't outlaw all commercial emails, the same way that outlawing rape doesn't outlaw consentual sex. You're just the one who's here. There aren't too many other posts and posters in this thread that seem to invite responses at the moment, and I'm watching this thread like a hawk because others like it have been known to disappear.

I also would guess that people like responding to your posts. You make a good impression.

---

Why, thank you, what a nice compliment!

I can see your point about consent. IMO consent vs. subversion equates to paid banner ads vs. viral advertising. It also equates to welcome e-mail newsletters vs. unwelcome SPAM.

I could be wrong about this, but I believe that it was litigation, or threatened litigation, or some legal action that required legitimate e-mail advertisers to include "unsubscribe" etc. Therefore, I still think that this viral advertising issue will end up in court. Moderators should have the option to "unsubscribe" in some way.

But maybe I am simplifying the issue too much here?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2004
Location:
Posts: 3

quote:

---

Originally posted by JMO4now
[B]I understand that, in a perfect world, legalities would not have to take place. However, IMO, the lessons of e-mail SPAM indicate that this is just not going to happen. I believe that, unfortunately, this is an issue that WILL end up clogging our courts.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that it will ultimately be litigation that forces responsibility onto these viral advertisers. IMO, without *direct* purchasing dollars at stake from the public to wage economic warfare, CTVs motivation will remain with the advertising dollars it gains. Of course I could be wrong on this!

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 346

quote:

---

Originally posted by corona688
I have a bit of a theory... back in the 60's or 70's, there was a study published showing how students learned better in classes that used flashy presentations with color images and such. What they didn't realize, the students didn't learn better because of the color slides, but because it was different -- color slides were a rarity back then, and it commanded attention. Now that anyone can make color slides with a computer and a inkjet, everyone's used to them. People don't pay special attention to them anymore.

Same goes for ads, would be my guess. People have gotten too good at tuning out traditional forms of advertisements. Things to filter out ads, like tivo and internet ad-blockers, are making it even harder. So new forms of advertising are being tried out, in the hope that things we don't recognize as ads will make a bigger impression. The trick is, we're not supposed to recognize them, and that's why we distrust them -- for them to be effective they must fool the consumer.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 346

quote:

---

Originally posted by KittenKaboodle


<snip><For 'message board advertising' to be effective, I think it would require a somewhat 'credible' source. From my experiences on the CourtTV message board, it seems most posters don't give much credence to messages posted by new members with few posts. Without investing alot of time, I don't think the message board advertising strategy can be successful.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2004
Location:
Posts: 9

quote:

---

Originally posted by JMO4now
I could be wrong about this, but I believe that it was litigation, or threatened litigation, or some legal action that required legitimate e-mail advertisers to include "unsubscribe" etc. Therefore, I still think that this viral advertising issue will end up in court. Moderators should have the option to "unsubscribe" in some way.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged