Re: Permission vs Interruption Marketing

From: Kim Brooks <kimbrooks_at_cortland.com>
Date: Thu 20 Apr 2000 10:05:08 -0700

DANIELLE CORLEY WROTE:
> At this week's Web Advertising 2000 conference in New
> York City, the topic of permission marketing came up
> frequently.

TO WHICH MARIA HELM REPLIED:
> To subjectively analyze "Permission vs Interruption
> Marketing", think about the "traditional media". Almost
> ALL advertising has can be seen as Interruption based.
> TV commercials. Ads in magazines (especially when they
> go between the pages of an article?). Billboards
> certainly interrupt the view. Most direct mail, which
> customers know as "junk mail", would be viewed as
> interruption advertising by your customers EVEN if they
> signed up for it. So should we suddenly begin to think
> that interruption marketing online is an ugly beast? I
> don't think so.

Yes, in traditional media, all advertising is
Intteruption. Commercials interupt the show you are
watching, Billboards interupt your view, Ads interupt
the article you are reading.

Yes, most online advertising has followed this model
and is still Interuption-based. Because most sites
like to think of themselves as either "broadcasters" or
"publishers" and they model their advertising
accordingly.

BUT the big difference is the AUDIENCE and the CONTROL
they now have. If I want to watch Frasier, I have to
sit through the commercials - I can get up and get a
cup of tea, I can hit the mute, or I can watch the
commercial. But I still have no choice about waiting it
out because I can only watch Frasier at 9:00, Thursday,
on NBC. Period.

When I am interupted ONLINE, I have CONTROL. If an ad
bugs me, I can click once and go anywhere else, with
thousands of other options. If all ads bug me, I can
install an ad filter. Or I can just ignore anything
that is banner shaped.

To say that Interuption is fine online because it's
fine everywhere else completely ignores the audience
perspective. Ask everyone you know:
a) if you could fast-forward past all the commercials
   in Frasier, would you?
b) If you could order your magazine without any ads,
   would you?
c) If you could filter out all online ads, would you?

The answers would be:
a) I wish I could; b) I wish I could; c) I already do.

> Bottom line:
> 1)We'll never get away from interruption marketing
> 2)permission marketing is only for repeat business
> 3)permission marketing must be quality content, or it
> becomes interruption marketing

I find number one here depressing, because the "we"
refers to advertisers. Again, the users perspective
isn't present. The irony is that -users- already have
"gotten away from interruption marketing" - online, at
least. That's why 99.6% of your banner impressions do
not result in a click-through. In a recent focus
group, out of 12 participants only two people could
name a single advertiser they had viewed in 20 minutes
of surfing. Most said, "I don't even look at that area
anymore, I scroll down as soon as possible."

Interruption just doesn't work online. Why do you
think all those web sites now pour their money into TV
& Print instead? Because at least it works in those
media. But yes, permission marketing is usually most
effective for repeat customers. So how do you market
to new audiences without interruption strategies? No
one has answered this yet. That's why online
advertising is still struggling to work, and constantly
trying to redefine itself. The first step: drop the
old attitude, "it works on TV, so we'll make it work
online."

Kim Brooks
kbrooks_at_bardo-brooks.com
http://www.bardo-brooks.com






Received on Thu Apr 20 2000 - 12:05:08 CDT