A lot has been written about ad-blockers over the last couple of weeks.
We all now know that Peace came from nowhere to top the iTunes charts for 36 hours, and was then just as quickly pulled by its creator, Marco Arment.
The end of Peace promptly turned the ad-blocking debate into a discussion about internet morality. (Surely an oxymoron, if ever there was one?!)
Is it immoral to view content for free knowing that you’re stopping the creator and publisher of that content being recompensed for their endeavours? Probably.
Are we going to stop people doing it? Hell, no. Not unless all ad-blocking products are purged from the market.
So here’s my take on it. Ad-blockers are a form of consumer feedback.
And the feedback consumers are giving the marketing industry is loud and clear. Collectively, our work simply isn’t good enough.
Yes, there are exceptions. I’m sure you can think of a few right now. But that’s what they are – exceptions.
The majority of online advertising is actually pretty terrible. Low cost, high volume banners are endlessly churned out, because as long as a tiny fraction of the public click through and buy, the cost-per-acquisition stays low and the agency creates profit for the advertiser.
But what about all the other people, the ones who don’t click, and won’t buy, but are still constantly targeted with irrelevant and intrusive advertising?
What’s the cost of each failed interaction?
When talking about the success of Breaking Bad, Walter White actor Bryan Cranston explains what drove the cast and crew to ensure that every detail of every scene was as perfect as they could make it.
He talks about each little continuity error, each little out of place gesture, each piece of dialogue that a character just wouldn’t say in a particular situation, as a ‘little drop of poison’.
Individually, a little drop of poison is nothing; the audience will accept it and get over it. But pretty soon, repeated doses of poison will make you sick. And in TV terms that means you’ll switch over, or switch off.
Well, we poisoned the internet with our cheap advertising, and the public got heartily sick of it.
The rise of ad-blockers is therefore a good time to pause and reflect on where we are as a marketing community, and where we’d like to be in future.
In defining our future we would be well-served to remember the mantra: “brands should serve people, not just serve ads to people”.
It strikes me that in this world of big data and amazing content opportunities, too many advertisers and agencies still seem to be making binary decisions in developing their online ad campaigns..
They either use really smart data-led targeting but deliver woeful creative, or produce wonderful idea-led creative that broadcasts the same experience to everybody, regardless of who they are or what is most likely to appeal to them.
There are very few agencies or advertisers that seem genuinely to be using data to inform the content experience they deliver to people. Again, there are exceptions. But they are too few and far between.
With the wealth of data available, and some of the greatest creative talent on the planet, the marketing community should be rising to the challenge so clearly laid down by consumers.
We should be constantly pushing to break down the silos, and finding ways to deliver genuinely engaging, valuable experiences to people, not just lamenting the fact that we can’t spam people to death until they either submit and buy our product or throw their phone at the wall in frustration.
So the question shouldn’t be ‘how do we get around the ad blockers?’
The question shouldn’t even necessarily be ‘what does the rise of ad blockers tell us about the state of people’s relationship with marketing?’
The question we should really be asking ourselves is ‘how can we ally both data-led insight and idea-led content to create meaningful brand experiences people will value?’
Because if we can create meaningful experiences that people will value, we will ultimately build greater value for brands.