Angry
Yesterday there was an article in the New York Times that talked about the advent of mobile phone advertising in the US. And it saddened me that the argument for mobile phone advertising was that it reduced bills, indirectly or directly, for mobile phone users. No wonder we are an industry that are often despised and more and more people feel advertising is spamming them if we start from the point that we are 'buying' eyeballs rather than adding value by giving people the gift of an interesting idea.
I just wonder when we're going to say: "no, I think that advertising on that might be a step too far..."
Phones is for fok to talk to other folk.
Not for ads - however cool and clever they are.
What happened to that Branded Utility thought we all got excited about before the holidays?
Posted by: Mark Earls | January 22, 2007 at 05:24 PM
Certainly seems like another case of "talking at" versus "talking with". I think you and Mark are both right in that the conversation must add value, and a branded utility could be a natural solution. "Talking at" makes one rationalize what they get out of it (hence the article), unlike a conversation which feels more organic and advantageous to both parties. I think these days there is a tendency for brands and advertisements to over-shout with all the increased media clutter out there.
Posted by: ross | January 22, 2007 at 05:53 PM
'We've gone too far' should have been uttered before Strawberry Frog decided 'thumbvertising' was a good idea
http://www.thumb-vertising.com/
Posted by: Gareth | January 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Now you just being naive.
90% of advertising sucks big time and you expect people to want them on their mobile phones?
No way mate.
Good weekend
A
Posted by: Asi | January 26, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Asi
That was my point. If we make conetnt that doesn't suck then maybe people will watch it. Good weekend too - great post on the plannersphere.
Posted by: Gareth | January 27, 2007 at 06:13 PM