RE: Unwanted Audio Ads (why not just turn speakers off?)

From: John Gaskill <jg_at_info-central-usa.com>
Date: Wed 25 Jul 2001 11:33:00 -0500

CARMEN PAULINO <clpsf_at_mindspring.com> WROTE:

>(Emphasis added.) The issue was about control and more
>specifically, control of audio -- which each of us already
>has. No one will argue about the use of good judgment --
>but good judgment cuts both ways. When one set of individuals
>wants to control another's activities simply because, as
>the original writer stated, **it's an inconvenience to
>his work style,** is this proposition based on good judgment?

<BIG SNIP>

>Should creative people stop offering audio because
>users might forget or don't want to adjust their controls?

No one is suggesting that developers or agencies stop
offering audio or video to individual ad recipients.

What is being suggested is that it be "offered" as opposed
to delivered without permission first had and obtained.

Lots of agencies think their creative is wonderful and
some of it actually is. The metaphor that comes to
mind is the 70's rock band, Blue Cheer, whose motto
was, "If you can't be good, BE LOUD!"

The difference then was that Blue Cheer played its
concerts in outdoor stadiums and on the ends of
piers so people's ears were not destroyed. Plus
people bought tickets (a permission event).

JOHN GASKILL STATED PREVIOUSLY:

>One of the hallmarks of good advertising is that it
>embraces more possible prospects than fewer. In the
>case of the audio ad for I-A, the ad developer
>could have provided two or three different sound tracks,
>each at different volume levels and labeled them "quiet
>voiceover"; "sfx & voiceover"; and "loud sfx & voiceover",
>and placed buttons in the ad itself.

TO WHICH CARMEN PAULINO REPLIED:

>There is an assumption here that advertisers leave
>their coffers open and say, spend what you like. There
>are parameters within which we all must work. How about
>if we just put up an audio icon and a message to lower the
>volume? At least this wouldn't require adding superfluous
>development cost.

I guess the question of superfluosity would have to be decided
by the advertiser. If an advertiser could double or triple the
favorable response to an ad by providing variable sound
tracks and controls, they might decide it was worth the money,
especially if that favorable response could be tracked into
ticket sales.

CARMEN PAULINO ALSO WROTE:
<snip>
>I still maintain that one
>person's annoyance with audio is another's enjoyment.
>And the audio volume, or potential shock capacity, is
>for the most part a function of where the user has set
>his/her volume.

I can't argue the truth in these statements. Both are
almost axiomatic. However, in the interest of good
advertising and driving sales curves upwards, one
should offer sound options to advertisers and ad
recipients instead of blindly pursuing "great creative."

Regards all,

John Gaskill
jg_at_info-central-usa.com
Beta Testers Wanted
Please sign on at: http://Info-Central-USA.com



Received on Wed Jul 25 2001 - 11:33:00 CDT