COMMENTS
Not quite sure how TV commercials aren't included in the Permission Marketing. Granted that they are not related to the program that I am watching but they do have my permission to display them. When I sit down to watch a live TV show I know that i am going to watch some commercials too. If I don't want to see the commercials I have to wait for the DVR to record it so I can fast forward. I understand how they aren't on the list but they feel more like a grey area to me and less like an absolute you don't have my permission.
Thanks Mike. Great post.
Ben, TV commercials aren't permission based for a simple reason: if they disappeared, you wouldn't miss them.
They exist for the advertiser, not the viewer. Until you change your perspective, none of this will make sense. But in a world of consumer attention power, it all makes perfect sense.
So then along the lines of a commercial, are PPC and banner ads the same idea. They are more interruptive? Or are they permissive because we have to
choose to click on them?
Also, can you give an example of the intravenous marketing? Trying to wrap my head around it!
I agree that TV ads interrupt you. That's why I use my DVR to fast forward throguh them all. Banner ads are somewhat interruptive, but probably a bit less so, and I think PPC ads are even less interruptive, since they only appear on the topic you are searching for at the time (but still 80% of people don't click on them).
Intravenous is less about "marketing" and more about the permission you have with the customer. An example would be the oil company where you give them permission to top off your tank and send you a bill whenever they want. Permission marketing is more about the relationship than any "marketing" that's the whole point.
TV ads have become an easy rant target because Tivo (and DVRs) have, over the past few years, allowed us to "skip" them.
TV ads are, however, a necessary part of the permission marketing that takes place in the world of broadcast communications. Commercials are packaged with consumers' expectations to get free content. If you didn't have advertising to support it, it wouldn't be "free." From a broadcaster or producer's perspective, TV ads allow TV to happen.
What would happen if we didn't have TV ads? We'd have pay-per-view TV, or what the DVD market has become. (Even DVDs have commercials: they keep the overall costs lower.)
As TV ad rates decline because of people skipping the ads on Tivo, the broadcasters will need to a) charge more for the content (or just charge something), b) interject or worsen the commercial interruption, or c) enforce a high level of creative quality to ensure consumer engagement.
When fast-forwarding through commercials, even I stop for the good ones; Apple's ads are not only funny, but their stark white backgrounds make it easy for me to spot while at speed "FFx3."
Seth Godin says that TV ads "exist for the advertiser, not the viewer." I disagree. Commercials are a viewing experience necessary for a point of engagement to occur -- between the viewer, advertiser, and broadcaster. In order to work, the commercial must provide the consumer with a positive experience. That hasn't happened recently, and viewers are taking action to change their behavior.
But if there were more commercials that really enticed and held up to scrutiny, advertisers would have viewers' permission.
@Alec
I guess I diagree. The ads on TV stand between me and the content I actually watch. No matter how funny or good they may be, I still have to watch them when the network puts them on. There is no permission! When I turn on my TV it doesn't say "would you like to watch some ads?" Part of the reason they are not permission based in not the content, but how they are delivered. I am forced to watch, there is no permission.
This is why people pay extra money for pay channels like HBO, which have programming without ads. This is also why people pay extra money for DVR/TiVo to fast forward through the ads. And also why people pay extra money to buy or rent TV shows on DVD to watch without the ads. It is true that maybe 0.1% of ads are somewhat entertaining. But I still have to watch them when I am told to watch them, not when I want to.
In contrast, think about YouTube. I search for what I want. When I am watching an ad there, it is permission based because I selected it from search results. If you have an ad that is entertaining, I would call it a viral video and what you should do is put them on YouTube and not spend millions to put them on TV. If they are funny, people will find them,a nd they will even share them with their friends for you.
Watch for my post tomorrow about a viral ad that has been watched 2 million times on YouTube. Sure, its an ad, but that ad is great content and because I watch it on YouTube when and how I feel like it, it is permission based.
Commercials are positively, irrefutably interruption marketing. And I agree with Seth that in regards to most commercials, I wouldn't miss them if they vanished overnight. However, there is still that miniscule proportion that grab our attention and ultimately become part of our ongoing cultural dialogue. Take, for instance, the "Make 7-Up Yours" campaign starring/written by Orlando Jones. The TV audience loved it, and 7-Up experienced sale euphoria. Or, more recently, Apple's "1-2-3-4 Tell Me That You Love Me More" commercial sung by Feist; she had been on the music scene for years, but that commercial made such a connection with the audience that her career has since exploded.
All I'm saying is that YES, the vast majority of commercials are an annoyance we would all be happy without. But the select few that weren't a waste of our time would be sorely missed and our cultural landscape wouldn't be the same without them.
Don't get me wrong. I certainly agree that TV ads are disruptions from the content we want to watch on TV. My DVR skips commercials like the rest of them.
I also agree that distaste for TV ads has pushed viewers to other types of viewing experiences, including time-shifting (Tivo), subscription-paying (HBO), owning/renting (DVDs/Netflix), viewing online (YouTube, etc.), or pirating/stealing. All of those are reasonable (even if illegal) consumer reactions to the broken relationship between broadcasters/advertisers and their viewing audience.
But certainly we can't envision a world where advertising won't underwrite most mainstream content, right? My point was simply that advertising comes with the territory, and that consumers shouldn't get angry about ads when they get TV shows delivered to their doorstep for free (TV shows that cost studios and distributors millions... or cost independent producers like me thousands).
TV ads are simply a trade-off between time and cost for the consumer. No ads? Higher cost. And I consider acceptance of that trade-off to be permission.
Regarding online content, YouTube is similarly is trying to sell ads against their video inventory, but can't on the majority of it because they don't have the rights to do so.
So how does YouTube stay in business? It's underwritten by Google, who has a stake in developing information (likes, dislikes, viewing habits) on each IP address and user account.
Giving away some amount of data privacy seems to be a price most people are happy paying. but the same was true of TV ads, in the beginning.
The permission model (or lack of permission) is the same -- we give up something to watch something for free.
We use contests as a fun way to market our brand and build a community. I think of it as permission marketing because you choose whether to enter or not. If you enter, you have given us your permission to keep you informed about the contest. It's completely voluntary and we get to stay more connected with our entering customers.