Church of the Customer Blog
« “Ubiquity is the new exclusivity" | Main | 10 books for every business leader »
January 15, 2007
“Ubiquity is the new exclusivity"
That's how one ad person sees the world, as quoted today in the NY Times ("Anywhere the Eye Can See, It's Likely to See an Ad"). The average American is now exposed to about 5,000 ad messages per day, but that's not enough for an ad person who sees the world through the sights of a shotgun and the rest of us as ducks.
If all of the natural spaces in the world also prominently feature billboards, stickers or posters, that's a fait accompli to the believer in ubiquity. The common good is someone else's problem. Oh wait, that's the new exclusivity.
If radio ads meant to be played specifically for children on school buses helps put food on someone's table, or some other tired excuse, then the moral trade-off of marketing to a captive audience simply becomes ambiguous. Besides, everyone else is doing it.
A company that waterboards society and its culture with advertising is an organization that not only lacks imagination and creative skill but is probably incapable of creating or maintaining any kind of meaningful relationship.
Like a sociopath.
Other blogs that reference “Ubiquity is the new exclusivity":
» Great Wordplay from J. D. Harper: The Official Blog
... [Read More]
» Attack of the ClutterMonsters from Portland's Finest Advertising Blog
Wondering why you cant seem to get anyones attention? Anywhere the eye can see, says the New York Times, its likely to see an ad.
When I first posted this, I tested the link to the article, and was taken first... [Read More]
When I first posted about this at www.philonadvertising.com, I tested the link to the article, and was taken first to an ad for a Sony notebook. That’s not happening now — I guess you only get that annoyance the first time you go there. Subsequently, you go straight to the article, but there’s still a little ad (actually, rotating ads for various movies) in the upper right corner.
Nice unintentional irony there.
Ben
You do have a point. Or rather several.
As advertising aimed at the masses increases, the masses increasingly ignore advertising not relevant to them. And the wasteful spiral ino advertising oblivion (rather than ubiquity) continues.
Advertisers and their apologists are patently incapable of regulating themselves.
The concern I have is when advertisers try to invade the otherwise largely untrammelled natural world. When they start to post intrusive billboards in national parks, or genetically engineer animals to display logos, or even put adverts into space that are visible from Earth.
This would serve the interests of advertisers, but would it be in our own interests, or those of society in general?
Graham Hill
Well said, Ben. All these advertisers live in fear of being ignored, so they continually try to yell louder and more frequently instead of, you know, doing something that deserves attention. Pretty annoying I must say.
Great observation about the mindset of advertisers. When talking to high school and college students about the future of advertising, I ask the girls if a guy bugs them to the point of irritation, are they more likely to go out with him or call the police? That's why I call many advertisers "stalkers" - which is obviously part of being a sociopath!
I think the quest for ubiquity is mostly a reflexive response, advertising's fear at losing broad stroke mediums and its inability, for the moment, to flourish easily in a fragmented mediascape.What they don't understand is that ubiquity can generate resentment as easily as it builds awareness.You'd think some advertising folks were incapable of looking at advertising as the consumer does.
