The NYTimes (walled garden ahead) has an article about the ubiquity of advertising in todays world. Instead of giving an opinion here I would like to open it up to our readers: Is this good or bad? (feed readers please click through a leave your opinion in the comments)
Snip:
âWe never know where the consumer is going to be at any point in time, so we have to find a way to be everywhere,â? said Linda Kaplan Thaler, chief executive at the Kaplan Thaler Group, a New York ad agency. âUbiquity is the new exclusivity.â?
Good? Bad? Inevitable? Comment now!
Technorati Tags: marketing.fm, marketing, advertising, new york times
January 15th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Taking the point from online advertising, i suppose is only good as long it is relevant to the consumer.
Take for example advertising on the toilets, which you may find suitable for a ad award but might be completely irrelevant to the consumer as soon as he ends what he had to do.
On the other hand, for example, advertising at bus stops is clearly a good approach as consumers are predisposed to pay attention and might be really memorable if it relates to the situation (ex: Have a spare time? Call 999-999 and get a free check-up).
Anyway, too much is too much. Advertising is already having a hard time getting into consumer’s mind (who fight back with Consumer Generated Media) so it would be better laying back for a while.
I guess reach and frequency are a bit outdated these days.
January 18th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
the real detrimental advertising is those ads targeted towards children encouraging the nag-factor. Straining a child’s relationship w/ their parent (s) is never OK. Any advertising done in schools is just plain fowl, i’m looking @ you McDonalds. I wrote a blog about this article on 1/15/07