I would have to agree: "we [the general population] are getting
to a point in our internet usage where we've developed advertising
blindness." (
Aaron Hoos) My Jellybattle was exactly that: we don't see ads
anymore.
Still working on yesterday's Facebook example…
Let's say Facebook got really, really good at targeting. Scary
good: like Pandora (link not
available outside US) does for music. You fire up Pandora, give it
a few songs and, through the magic of the Music
Genome Project it gives you suggestion for music. Many other
online music services do this (Yahoo Launchcast, Last.fm, etc.).
But Pandora is different from those other ones: it's good, scary
good (to be fair, I haven't tried Last.fm - it could be good
too).
When I started with Pandora, I punched in a few of my favorite
songs that I thought were similar (there are many different pools I
sip from musically, so I grabbed an "easy one" and gave a sampling
to Pandora). It started me off on a favorite song - not one of the
ones that I gave it, but a different one by the same artist: an
easy win for Pandora (and yes, I'm purposefully not giving any
specifics here for fear of persecution for my musical tastes). But
then it moved to other artists and songs. Artists that I had never
heard of.
One artist in particular, wasn't new (they have 5-6 albums
available from Amazon), but never got airplay on any radio stations
that I have heard. I loved them. They were somewhat similar to one
of the artists that I had entered, but better. Better? The
algorithm found something better and that artist is now part of my
"list of bands I like."
This story, by the way, happened over a year ago. I still
remember it because it was so good. In fact, even though I can't
listen to Pandora (over 6 months now without Pandora) - here I am
talking about it. (And I'm not the only one: this week I was
talking to someone about how we miss having Pandora - I have my
entire CD library ripped onto my computer, but I miss Pandora for
the new fresh music.) And that is just one example: it showed me a
whole new artist who I now greatly enjoy, but there were many songs
during my time with Pandora that I also enjoyed.
My point is just that you can have algorithms be scary good
(although, to be fair, Pandora is more than algorithm, it uses
people to categorize the music - but I'd argue that their taxonomy
of music and their process for adding people to rate is the
algorithm if a little more "lo-tech").
Meanwhile, back at the Facebook ranch So, let's
say Facebook starts the "Ad Genome Project" and makes an algorithm
that gets good results. It's scary good. You visit a friend's
profile page and they show you an ad for a Frogpad. That product is
interesting to you: it's already on your Amazon wishlist. And, not
only is the ad for the Frogpad but the RadioShack down the street
from your work has it on sale and they have that information too.
And here's the phone number.
That's scary good. (I think it can get even better than
that.)
Currently, the advertising headspace runs like this (from my
limited understanding):
- "Ads on TV or in magazines will get seen by a lot of people,
but we don't know who and we don't know how much impact they have.
We do know they make a difference, even if less than 1% of people
who see the ads do anything - it doesn't matter because there are
so many people seeing the ads that it makes a difference."
- "Ads online are better: we can target them so that we get a
higher response rate. It's still pretty low [when was the last time
you clicked on a Google Ad in their Search? Yeah, thought so.], but
better than traditional media. And we know when it is working and
for whom."
So, let's say Facebook, being online, is in camp 2 but they have
a better pitches (equal or better algorithm + more information). If
they can get dramatically better targeting and therefore more
likely to get clicks, why wouldn't they server fewer ads.
Again: serve fewer ads.
Fewer Ads: More Power Not only would this help
with the ad blindness that we have - but, by making ads uncommon on
Facebook I think we might be more attentive to those few ads. If,
of course, they are more applicable.
In IdeaVirus,
Seth Godin talks about different kinds of people who spread an
idea: promiscuous sneezers and powerful sneezers (he uses a cold as
the metaphor for how ideas spread: hence the "sneezer" is a
spreader of the ideavirus).
He states that promiscuous are motivated by money (e.g. pay for
your ad and I'll run it) and "are rarely held in high esteem."
Powerful sneezers, on the other hand, can't be bought but has more
influence: people listen.
I'm not suggesting that Facebook can swing all the way over on
the pendulum: from their current location at promiscuous to
powerful. But, I do think that by running fewer good ads that are
relevant (seriously, I am not going to go to the University of
Phoenix online: stop telling me about it) they can increase their
power. It's not an either/or: it's a continuum.
So, if you run fewer ads but they are generally targeted what
happens? I start paying attention because I have learned through
experience that the odds are I am going to be interested in an ad
from Facebook. In fact, if you are really good and only show me the
really good stuff, I'm like to trust you. I'll see an ad, won't
really know what it is for but will think "they are usually
interesting, I'll click to see what it is." That's power. Pandora
had that with me: even if I had never heard of the song, I'd give
it a chance - because Pandora usually suggested good stuff.
Experience is how we got into this mess in the first place:
we've learned that, most of the time, ads are useless and not
interesting. Ads on TV, in magazines, on street-side billboards,
online... Ads are what someone wants me to do: not what I am
interested in. We've learned that lesson well and are adept at
tuning them out.
So, when I can look forward to fewer ads and good ads in my
online experience?
Update: More
discussion on news & advertising on Facebook from
GigaOm