Internet Annoy-vertising on Philly.com

I have been a long time reader of the Philadelphia Inquirer to keep in touch with Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey news. For a couple of years I read the hard copy of the paper, but gradually grew weary of using all of that paper day in and day out. So I have since become a daily peruser of thenewspaper's online portal, Philly.com, which is much more environmentally friendly, and free for anybody to read, which is also nice.

It's a widely known fact that newspapers are bleeding subscribers due to the ease and efficiency of the Internet and its virtually infinite number of news sources. And it's also widely known that newspapers are having a difficult time making a profit in this changing world of news production.

So I empathize with the fact that newspapers are looking for new, creative ways to make money. But two of the Inquirer's latest undertakings on Philly.com, are quite annoying.

First off, when you click on to Philly.com, you don't realize it, but a pop-under ad often sneaks behind your browser. This in and of itself is annoying, though a fairly common practice across the internet, unfortunately. I frequently get ads from Netflix, for example, in this manner, and promptly ignore them. But the more annoying fact about these pop-unders are that they consist of a list of low rate ads, the likes of which you might see on Facebook's platform. Here's an example of one recent ad (out of six) that popped up:

'See How a Mom Drops 53Lbs!'

See how a mom of 3 drops 53lbs by obeying this 1 old rule... Learn more [link]

[ad accompanied by a cropped photo of a thin woman's belly exposed between tight white shirt and tight jeans]

My suggestion: at least provide some ads of value if you're going to sneak them in there. Perhaps post ads for local houses for sale, sporting event tickets, or other specialized deals, rather than ads trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator of internet surfers.

The other flustering thing that Philly.com does revolves around their sports articles. Click on a link to an article about, say, the Philadelphia Eagles' next game, and a video automatically starts playing when the page opens up. Most of these videos start with a commercial and then contain generic clips or photos of recent games. The main business page also does something similar when clicking on that page. I think it's a sensible idea to have videos incorporated into the site, but I would prefer them to start only when I click on them, and also make the commercials less intrusive.

I do hope that the Inquirer and Philly.com are able to find a way to earn a profit off of their news production, I just hope that they can find a more user-friendly way of appealing to loyal readers by avoiding intrusive ads and videos. Just my 2 cents.

Land Rover Ad Laughable

Had to laugh when I saw an ad for Land Rover while reading the Philadelphia Business Journal today.

Here is the advertisement's headline:

"75% of all the vehicles we've ever sold in this country are still on the road"

Alright, well that's relatively benign.

Subhead:

"Now that's a long-term investment."

Ok, I just bought a new car this week (full disclosure: NOT a Land Rover), and the minute I drove off the lot I literally chuckled to myself and said, "well I just lost 20% of my money in a matter of seconds." It's sad but true.

It is common knowledge that cars lose a huge percentage-- generally considered to be about 30% of their value-- in depreciation during the first year after purchase. So why would an advertiser try to pull the wool over our eyes and say that buying a Land Rover is "an investment?"

An investment, lest we forget, is supposed to be something that makes you money over time, not loses money. Cars are inherently not an investment. They get beat up and lose their luster compared to newer vehicles, thus they are not worth as much as when you buy them new.

Sorry Land Rover, you're not fooling anyone. Or at least you're not fooling 75% of us, but I guess somebody out there is buying your message.

Billboard Vacancies

Riding around, I'll often see a billboard that is unsold, and a message on it reading, "Your Ad Here" + a phone number to call to buy the ad space.

Just a thought-- you've got this massive square footage of unused sign space, can't we use it for something for the public good in the meantime? Perhaps a photo of a missing child on one half and your ad on the other half? Or maybe you donate the ad to a charity for a week at a time, until the space gets sold. Or display a work of art by a local artist. Something, anything.

Billboards are considered to be an eyesore by many people. Why not try to counter that opinion with an engaging message instead of just shamelessly self-promoting yourself? In the end, if potential clients see the great possibilities that a billboard can offer, they'll be more inclined to want to rent it. Plus, seeing a sign that essentially says "nobody else wants to place an ad here, why should you?" is not exactly all that enticing to a prospective customer.

In other words, let's see billboard companies get creative and put their Monet where their mouth is.

AT&T Commercial: Thumbs Down

Sorry, it's another negative blog post by me ripping on a bad television commercial. But what voice does a lowly consumer have when it comes to these terrible commercials that are forced down everybody's throats? The good ole blog is probably the best bet.

So you've undoubtedly seen the AT&T Wireless commercials showing a closeup of two hands holding the typepad on a Samsung phone. The thumbs, used to type in a text message, have faces superimposed on them. Not only do these thumb-faces make me want to gag because they look bizarre, but they talk and try to say funny things like "Shake your funnymaker." It's really quite torturous and annoying.

I get the concept here, but the execution doesn't work for me. I'm all for a little innovation and having fun with TV commercials, but hopefully AT&T can come up with *ahem* thumb-thing else.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Commercial Suggestion for Cell Phone Companies

I see cell phone companies often bragging in their commercials about how they provide better reception than their competitors.

"More Bars in More Places" (AT&T)
"Can You Hear Me Now?" (Verizon)
"Now, That's Better" (Sprint)

But how much more vague can you get? Not only that, but many of these commercials show a made-up scenario that is supposed to represent a real cell-phone situation, like AT&T's doofus on top of a ridge knocking on car windows trying to find his daughter because he didn't get the message from her that she was staying over a friend's house. It's lazy marketing.

Instead of all this cutesy stuff, here's my idea for a killer, sensible, and direct ad campaign...

If you're really the best wireless carrier, take comparable phones from each company to one spot, line them up on the screen, and simply show the reception on the phone to illustrate just how much better your reception is. Perhaps it's a field in the middle of Iowa where your company has four bars, the others have two or one. Or maybe it's in the lobby of a hotel in Walla Walla Washington, or on the 17th hole at Augusta National Golf Course.

To me, seeing the actual reception levels at various places like this is indisputable evidence that your company really is better than the others in providing a good signal. And it would be a lot less annoying than these other bogus characters they've developed.

But hey, that's just me.

REALTOR Commercials Reek of Desperation

For the past year or so I've seen a few different commercials for REALTORS (henceforth referred to as just "realtors", lower case, here... sorry, I just want it to seem like I'm SCREAMING at readers). To me, these commercials just reek of desperation.

Maybe it's the stiff, overly business-like actors that have no real personality other than trying to professionalize an industry that is largely wide-open in terms of personalities. Let's face it, real estate agents are often real characters, and that's probably because they have to be in order to sell homes through think and through thin. But I definitely don't associate a realtor as being a corporate suit, which is the image that these commercials are going for.

Add to that, these realtor commercials remind me of what the gasoline industry is trying to do... pounding the airwaves with ads that are really veiled attempts at public relations. All of a sudden, gas companies are the Earth's best friends: researching new "clean" energy, giving tips on how to improve gas mileage, and showing what the "green" future holds in the world of energy production. All so friendly and glistening. And all too phony for me to believe it's really happening.

In my humble opinion, I think that the real estate industry is trying to cling to an outdated, dying industry. Or if it's not dying, it will soon be changing.

Having recently purchased a home for the first time, I found the process rather daunting, from soup to nuts. A good realtor, to his/her credit, guides a homebuyer (as my realtor did) through all of these obstacles and answsers a lot of questions along the way and gives worthwhile advice. To get paid, the real estate agent simply has to sell houses for high values (that increase over time) in order to absorb high commissions.

But as I see it, and as Seth Godin talked about in this great post, this formula will be changing in due time. As housing prices rise higher (okay, maybe not at the moment, but over the long run), commissions will also be rising for agents, while their amount of work performed, in theory, won't. So either an hourly rate or a flat selling fee will eventually come in to play, I would theorize. Or more people will take things in their own hands and buy/sell on their own.

On that note, with the advent of the internet and with the pressure that has now come on homeowners to do more thorough research, the average homebuyer will be able to easily obtain important information that otherwise would have come from the realtor. In other words, information is becoming more readily accessible via the internet and other sources, meaning the realtor's competitive advantage will likely gradually decline.

So getting back to the commercials, the National Association of REALTORS has it in its best interest to try and preserve that image of the realtor being the all-knowing confidant that you absolutely need to buy or sell your home. Maybe that's the case today. But in the long run, that sounds like an uphill battle to me. And desperation is no place to be in the world of advertising...

Volkswagen Ad: Bad Sounding?

My last post centered around the poor timing of Verizon ads, which give me the creepy feeling of "Big Brother is Listening to Me".

Today I'd like to write a blurb about how annoying this new Volkswagen commercial is. At least I think it's a VW advertisement, but to be honest it annoys me so much that I can't even stand to pay attention to it enough to look at what company is torturing me.

So here's the summary of the commercial:

Guy and gal are in a car showroom (how innovative).
They see a car they like and start to get close to it.
The car's alarm starts up and car starts beeping obnoxiously.
They back off.
Alarm goes silent.
They step forward again.
The alarm blares again.
Guy and gal can't figure out why, but they keep inching in towards car.
Turns out-- are you ready?-- a buyer upstairs is hitting the alarm button on the remote just to mess with them.

So not only are the people looking at the car complete idiots (is that the kind of message you want to convey about your customers? -Ed.), but the commercial insists on blasting the horn repetitively.

Sorry folks, but in my book it don't get much more annoying than that. Most people that drive hear horns every single day and don't particularly want to come home, relax on the couch, and get hit with them from a lame commercial because some marketing flunkie misread the focus group reports that people really "Don't like to hear horns repetitively."

That's my sound-off for today. Thanks for tuning in. Next time I'll try to focus on something more positive and less headache-inducing.

Here's a New "Nuance Marketing Message" for Automakers

Dear Toyota, Honda, GM, Ford, Saturn, Kia, Hyundai, Rolls-Royce, Jeep, Mazda, et. al:

It is quite obvious to me that the marketing messages and positioning statements for cars are slowly shifting away from the major aspects of cars, such as reliability, safety, dependability, and the like. Instead, consumers are bombarded with ads that focus on the tiny nuances in each car model. To wit:

-Ford Focus ads feature their new Sync system that controls your phone, music, text messaging, hairstyles, body odor, and the like.
-Scion ads talk about their customization flexibility
-Various mini-van ads tout their space saving capabilities like fold-down seats
-Pontiac Aztek ads were noted for showing off the fact that you can camp out in the back
-And so on and so forth.

So here's my nuance marketing suggestion that I would like to see developed and marketed for a new car:

crevice-free cabins

That's right. I want a car that has ZERO crevices in it. No place for me to lose loose change. Nowhere for dirt to hide. No entrance for parking garage ticket stubs to get stuck. No way for my sunglasses to get lodged in between the seat and the door right when the sun's blaring in my eyes. Just a solid, complete mold of a cabin whereby nothing falls into the "abyss" never to be found again.

Now THERE'S a positioning statement you can hang your hat on. And not lose in the seat cusions.

Ads by GEICO: Enough is Enough

GEICO has really pushed full-throttle with an advertising blitz to encourage people to spend 15 minutes in the hope of saving 15% on auto insurance. Coincidentally, I'm hit with a GEICO ad 15 times a day on average, and, also coincidentally, I tune out these ads 15 times a day.

The gecko, the cavemen, the celebrities... ok, we get it. You guys have a million characters and will continue to pound the average consumer into submission until they request a quote. You win. Try having an all-around good company in an all-around good industry that people want to talk about and you won't need to spend millions on advertising. The word will spread itself.

But now that I think about it, State Farm, AllState, AIG and others are also flooding the airways with their commercials. Shame that when people get flooded out of their houses, the money doesn't exactly come pouring in.

Ok, I understand that insurance companies have helped build America to become a great country by minimizing risks caused by fires, weather, burglars, stray golf balls, etc., but there's got to be a better way to make money than squeezing dollars away from claimants when they're in need. Fortunately, I've never had to make a major claim, save for one minor fender bender which was not my fault, but I cannot imagine what people have to go through in order to get their money back when insurance companies either don't pay quickly, drag out lawsuits, pay less than they should, or don't cover a loss at all. I'm all for capitalism and businesses earning money, but people who pay for peace of mind should get it when they need it. 15 bucks lost should be 15 bucks paid. Plain and simple. Put that in an ad and smoke it.

Semantics & Health: What Is "Energy"?

Everywhere I look nowadays, I am bombarded with messages about foods and beverages providing "energy". What does this really mean anymore?

Some examples, specific marketing messages or general schools of thought:
-"Red Bull gives you wings."
-"For an afternoon boost, eat carrots."
-"Pasta is high in carbs which gives you energy."
-"Popeye gets his energy from spinach."
-"Powerbar Performance: The Original Energy Bar" is packed with "complex carbs" and "delivers sustained energy for a performance edge"
-Maine Munchies cites a Business 2.0 article that states: To get a fast-acting boost without a harsh sugar crash, try pairing sugar with protein. A prepackaged trail mix with both nuts and dried fruits is a perfect (and portable) high-energy combo

You get the idea. I think we're so obsessed with doing more and more every day on less and less sleep that we'll buy anything that claims to gives us more energy. While I realize that foods and drinks give me energy (anything with calories, technically, gives people energy), and that healthy foods are better for you since they keep you going and don't bog you down like fried foods, for example, but when I think of energy, I think of ADRENALINE. To me, Red Bull is not an energy drink... it's a caffeine drink.

I could eat the healthiest food around and drink a gallon of coffee before I go out to run, but I'm still bored and tired after a few blocks. That's why I don't run. I just don't get adrenaline-- "the runner's high" like some do.

However, put me on a basketball court in a fun competitive game, and my adrenaline will keep me going for hours. I'm into the game, I'm getting the juices flowing, I'm feeling the energy, the adrenaline.

And that's something that can't be wrapped up or bottled in a factory.

Well, not yet.