Advertising: when is it too much?

The latest invention, trialled in recent editions of Entertainment Weekly, is magazine adverts... with mini tv-screens. Yup, motion adverts have now made it into magazines. Personally, I think this is taking advertising too far. It's a waste of electronic resources, and it makes the pages thicker (so you can't bend the magazine).

It's also distracting and just another way for marketers to get "in your face". OK, so motion adverts have become common on the internet - but the internet is free! If I'm paying for a magazine, I don't want to pay for adverts to literally shout at me from the pages. I'm already buying pages and pages worth of print adverts. I think that's enough... big business obviously thought differently.

BBC: Video Screens Hit Paper Magazines.

Wow, seriously? I think it is a bit excessive and a waste of money, to be honest. Like you said, there are already so many ads in it. I would also assume the cost of the magazine goes up because of the mini tv thing?

I'm guessing it's not recyclable?

Such a waste. And I worry what's in those screens, and ending up in our landfills.

So don't buy the magazine and pick a different source for entertainment news.  Then go to their website (they all have one), and fire off an email telling them precisely why you're buying the product of a competitor.

Original Post by amethystgirl:

I'm guessing it's not recyclable?

Such a waste. And I worry what's in those screens, and ending up in our landfills.

 Most e-waste gets shipped to third world countries to "bridge the digital divide" which is scarrier then it ending up in our landfills IMO

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/ 11/1108_051108_electronic_waste.html

As for the inserts into the magazine I think its great. The application to converge different media is amazing. Think about your favorite novel. Mine is a Fantasy novel. Now in the middle of the epic battle I flip the page and there is some CGI rendition of how the author saw the battle when writing the book. These things have the ability to hold up to 40 minutes of video. This is great!

Original Post by emilysmi:

Original Post by amethystgirl:

I'm guessing it's not recyclable?

Such a waste. And I worry what's in those screens, and ending up in our landfills.

 Most e-waste gets shipped to third world countries to "bridge the digital divide" which is scarrier then it ending up in our landfills IMO

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/ 11/1108_051108_electronic_waste.html

I meant a global "our".

So far I have been lucky enough that no product I buy or show that I would watch has advertised using those annoying motion ads even on the web. Should any show up in a magazine I buy, that will be the end of that subscription.

Unfortunately, annoying people has a proven track record of improving sales. Yes, annoying you is profitable and it will continue until it is no longer cost effective. That it is showing up in magazines means the technology is becoming less costly. Convenience to the consumer is not the issue because it doesn't matter that you can't bend the pages as long as you see the ad a lot. Nor is making a quality product so important because making it cheap and marketing it well increases the profit.

Through constant repetition the product becomes so inserted within your mind that at some point you lose the negative association, see the product, and think "hmmmm, I've heard about that" and buy it or watch it. Thoses ridiculous ads for stupid FOX and WGN shows that pop up during the broadcasts of baseball games are a great example of annoying but cheap marketing.

Recourse? Complaints are unlikely to stop anything. Santonacci is right, the only way to stop it is if enough people buy elsewhere. Money is the only language to use. The hard part comes when the annoyance is from your product of choice.

Original Post by jannid:

Santonacci is right, the only way to stop it is if enough people buy elsewhere. Money is the only language to use. The hard part comes when the annoyance is from your product of choice.

Unfortunately, I think for every one person who says "What a wasteful idea" there are 10 "ooh - how cool" people, and a boycott would go unnoticed (especially if the former group aren't even the target audience for the magazine).

As for the inserts into the magazine I think its great. The application to converge different media is amazing. Think about your favorite novel. Mine is a Fantasy novel. Now in the middle of the epic battle I flip the page and there is some CGI rendition of how the author saw the battle when writing the book. These things have the ability to hold up to 40 minutes of video. This is great!

I thought the point of reading a fantasy novel would be to excite the imagination, not the retinas. A novel is no longer a novel if it contains mini tv screens - and it would destroy the image of the characters I had imagined through the author's words.

Besides which, these implanted tv screens are not being used as a form of multi-media entertainment; they're being used purely as advertising.

I agree with meryl...  I would seriously hate reading a novel that used a video to show me things instead of letting me use my imagination.  I don't even like it that much when they put images of the characters on the cover. 

It's bad enough when a good director with a decent budget gives me his version of the story in a movie. 

Original Post by emilysmi:

 Now in the middle of the epic battle I flip the page and there is some CGI rendition of how the author saw the battle when writing the book. These things have the ability to hold up to 40 minutes of video. This is great!

We already have this, they're called DVDs and they can hold way more than 40 minutes. 

yeah, if I wanna watch a movie I will.. but most of the time i prefer the movie I MAKE in my head from the book.

I don't like my electronics telling me what to see. :P

This made me think of Harry Potter - the newspapers, photos and paintings.

Who new HP was prophetic?

~K

Original Post by crazydiamondchrysalis:

yeah, if I wanna watch a movie I will.. but most of the time i prefer the movie I MAKE in my head from the book.

I don't like my electronics telling me what to see. :P

That's how I feel too. I have never seen a movie made from a book that was better than the book. Even if I have misunderstood the description of the character from the author's words I still prefer what my imagination has created about the characters and scenery.

Have you seen the advertising screens at gas stations?  There's a couple of stations that I won't go to unless I'm on my emergency light and they're nearby.  Getting chattered at while I'm trying to pump gas is just annoying.

Original Post by merylwhite1:

The latest invention, trialled in recent editions of Entertainment Weekly, is magazine adverts... with mini tv-screens. Yup, motion adverts have now made it into magazines. Personally, I think this is taking advertising too far. It's a waste of electronic resources, and it makes the pages thicker (so you can't bend the magazine).

It's also distracting and just another way for marketers to get "in your face". OK, so motion adverts have become common on the internet - but the internet is free! If I'm paying for a magazine, I don't want to pay for adverts to literally shout at me from the pages. I'm already buying pages and pages worth of print adverts. I think that's enough... big business obviously thought differently.

BBC: Video Screens Hit Paper Magazines.

 Darn, no more cards to fall out of the mags. So now the price will go way, way up. Enough, if enough already. Look at t.V. a 1/2 hour show is 15 minutes and 15 minutes of commercials. And the commercials run over and over and over. All this advertising and no money to buy any of the stuff anyway. :(

Original Post by amethystgirl:

...a boycott would go unnoticed (especially if the former group aren't even the target audience for the magazine).

I'm not talking about an organized boycott - Don't buy stuff you don't want.  It's pretty simple.

(Although I will point that a once easily recycled item when it was all paper has added another reason to reject it on environmental  reasons alone - unless they've found volunteers to separate all those screens from the paper before they're tossed in the green bin with the arrows.)

It's just one more way to reach people, and a fascinating one at that.  I think the technology is great, and the potential uses are huge (especially in advertising). I'd argue it's better than the ads in bathroom stalls at bars. 

The hope is to bring more entertainment to ads... a way to disguise advertising as entertainment. I can't speak for if they're actually entertaining however: some will in fact find it cool/interesting/useful info. Some won't. That's what people like me get paid to figure out: what people in the target audience find interesting/useful and the best way to reach them without annoying them.

At the same time, it's ultimately all about recognition and while negative recognition isn't great, it's still something.  I mean hell, everyone's talking about this new advertising medium. 

That's all the industry is looking for -- new ways to reach people.  TV is just one example of a medium that isn't as reliable anymore (since the introduction of DVR).

Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by amethystgirl:

...a boycott would go unnoticed (especially if the former group aren't even the target audience for the magazine).

I'm not talking about an organized boycott - Don't buy stuff you don't want.  It's pretty simple.

(Although I will point that a once easily recycled item when it was all paper has added another reason to reject it on environmental  reasons alone - unless they've found volunteers to separate all those screens from the paper before they're tossed in the green bin with the arrows.)

Right now that's not much of a problem as I don't buy Entertainment Weekly. But I would be bothered if the video adverts spread into magazines or other print media that I do like.