SBB has discussed the ineffectiveness of "interruption" advertising in previous posts, and here's another example. The Steammatic and Hires ads on the cover of the JG's TV Journal are intentionally positioned to interfere with content, apparently in hopes that their being impossible to avoid will make their offers impossible to resist.
The problem is that this just doesn't work. "Interruption" tactics like these ads are kind of like a fly buzzing around your lemonade on a summer afternoon. You notice the fly. You even give the fly a few seconds' attention--but only to get it to go away. Then you drink your lemonade and forget that the fly ever existed.
What's the alternative? How about a marketing solution that engages a targeted prospect audience--people who are likely to be in the market for your product or service? Sure, that's more difficult to come up with than a starburst ad slapped on the cover of a newspaper insert, but nothing good comes easy. 
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Interruption vs. engagement: as seen on TV Journal
One footnote: It also doesn't help that Hires is advertising a "Brak" job in its ad. No, this shouldn't be a deal breaker. But the quality of your advertising infers the quality of your product or service. Fair or not, when you misspell a word in your ad, the consumer wonders what details you'll miss if they hire you.
Stumble it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Thank you for articulating an important point. As a former copy editor, I may be more particular about spelling and punctuation than most. (Though it does not take a former copy editor to spot this error; it'll stop you in your tracks ... bad brake pun intended.) But I instantly assume the same even without knowing how the error occurred: If a company is careless with such obvious details, what else will it be careless about? I think of a business near my home identified as "Profesional Dry Cleaners" on its permanent awning. And I think I'll go to Urban Cleaners down the street.
Post a Comment