The user may not even be aware of the connection, but when a really powerful commercial hits us, be it "I want to be a yes man" from Monster, "Where's the beef?" from Wendy's, "I'd like to teach the world to sing" from Coke or even "What would you do for a Klondike bar?" that impact subconsciously makes us recall those jingles, songs and phrases. When you think of them in your brain, even silently, your hear them. "Where's the beef?" is not said as a deadpan copy line; it's "Where's the Beef?" Those emotive, high impact phrases transcend the medium.
And it is not just positive emotional impact that makes connections. HeadOn's "HeadOn, apply it directly to the forehead" produces annoyance and a jittery feeling throughout my body. I tense up and want to punch the television. But, for new product introductions, especially for a product that has a different application method, those emotions are powerful. Many marketers mistake hating an ad for hating a product. I may hate the ad and it may annoy every small fiber in my body, but anger and hate are powerful emotions. I hate the commercial, but the product? Eh, I know what it does, so when the need for it or another headache medicine arises, I may give it a try.
When ads reach this level of resonance they become memes and propagate throughout society like a virus, transcending the television medium via word-of-mouth transference. In other words, free advertising. When's the last time you had an emotional reaction to an online ad? Online ads rarely impact the limbic system, but remain as cognitive cortex thoughts. You take in the information, which is good, but it lacks the emotional resonance. You can repeat back those tidbits of information as facts, but again, the emotional connection to the brand is missing. It is the difference between saying, "that online ad made me laugh," (a cortex statement) and "that television ad gave me a warm feeling inside, and then made my body shiver," (a limbic statement). Connecting advertising to the limbic feelings in the consumer's body is more likely with media like television, which impacts the senses in an immersive fashion, thereby aiding recall.
Problem 3: Interruptive vs. peripheral
Television is an interruptive advertising medium. The content surrounds the commercial break, but does not intrude on it.
The majority of online is advertising is peripheral in nature -- existing on the same page as the content being consumed.
The difference is that we are receptive to interruptive advertising in lean-back, passive consumption mediums, but not in lean-forward, active consumption ones.
A consumer's annoyance with interruptive forms of advertising increases with the degree of active consumption, and it is this discrepancy that most marketers ignore at their own peril. Interruptive techniques can be used very effectively online, but be careful to acknowledge the consumer's mindset when doing so. Orbitz is a prime example of this. Its use of pop-unders as an entertainment distraction helped it brand without cramming an informational message down consumers' throats.
Problem 4: Content vs. entertainment
Television is primarily an entertainment medium, not an informational one. Granted, The Discovery Channel, TLC and other channels do a good job of expanding what we know about the planet and people on it, but their audiences are small compared to the dullards who watch "American Idol." These people are being entertained, not educated. Well, unless they look deeper and see the educational value of… uh... ummm... uhhhh... crap, I'm trying, but there's nothing deeper to learn there.
Entertainment media are passively consumed, while informational ones are actively consumed. This puts the most common forms of online advertising at a distinct disadvantage.
<< Previous page | Next page >>
