Measuring Up

Everybody is a “solutions” provider

The other morning, I watched Dow Chemical’s CEO conduct an interesting interview on CNBC about his  company’s business strategy.  Throughout the interview, he repeated over and over again how Dow Chemical is a solutions provider for its clients. He offered up one or two examples that showcased this. But, to be honest, he pretty much lost me after the fifth time the word “solutions” came out of his mouth.

So many companies across countless industries continue to use ambiguous phrases such as “solutions provider” to describe the core benefit provided to clients/customers. The problem with this phrase is that while everyone understands immediately what the word solutions means, ironically it has almost no worth or significance because of its complete overindulgence in today’s business world.

Think about it. What company doesn’t provide solutions to its customers? I’ll go out on a limb here and contend that those companies that really can’t provide solutions won’t be in business very long. So, if a company has been in business for say a year or even two, it’s probably safe to say it is providing at least a solution to customers.

I believe the bottom line effect of using a phrase like this in one’s positioning statement, or at least  as a core message in how a company tries to set itself apart, will have the opposite of the desired result. Most business people hear or read “solutions provider” and their eyes glaze over because they’ve heard that from thousands of other companies. Now, this company (which is trying to set itself apart) has actually become that much more commoditized in the mind of the target audience.

Try using this phrase on a phone call with a reporter while communicating why your client has the greatest company since sliced bread. Oh boy. You’ll never experience someone try to end a conversation quicker. For them, it’s a matter of building credibility about why your client deserves to be interviewed or featured versus the other thousand companies that are pitched to him/her each day. You say solutions provider and the reporter hears blah, blah, blah… It’s an instant turn off and the credibility you were attempting to build is gone.

Over the years, we’ve seen many buzz words come and go. Most don’t have lasting power (which is good) because they become meaningless because everyone tries to own them.  A few phrases that come to mind (mostly from technology companies) include: cutting edge, bleeding edge and scalable. While there is certainly nothing wrong with communicating these phrases internally, we’ve always tried our best to steer clients away from putting them in press releases, on their Web sites and in articles/speeches. Sometimes it worked and many times it didn’t.

For whatever reason, “solutions provider” continues to live long and prosper. (Sorry, I’m a Star Trek fan.) I hope just a few of those companies that continue to cherish this phrase wake up and take notice of what I’m writing. Trust me. You won’t be putting your best foot forward in communicating what your company’s unique story is if “solutions provider” is in the mix.

Selling to the CEO

That doesn't happen all too often for agency executives. Yes, we meet with CEOs and often present to them.  But, typically our plans, programs and campaigns are thoroughly vetted and approved by their communications and marketing heads well before such a greeting ever takes place.

So, when I have an opportunity to spend any significant time and find out what makes a Fortune 500 CEO tick, I really try to take full advantage of it.

And, just the other day this happened. One of our newer clients is a start up. The company's founder and CEO just recently spent a number of years running a $5 billion financial services company (which we also represented.)

Now, with his new enterprise in startup mode, we found ourselves trading knowledge in a way that I never thought would happen. He's just learning to be an entrepreneur for the first time and is anxious to make the right decisions out of the gate (I guess from my mistakes.) And, I'm extremely interested in hearing his views on what in my little world of communications, PR and marketing actually matters to the leader of a large, international company.

Boy, did I get an earful that I won't forget anytime soon.

Let's start with the topic of something near and dear to my heart – measurement. This client is a financial/ operations guy. Most people assume that number crunchers always want everything measured. More to the point, the belief is that they need to see what we call ROI (return on investment). Did a $100 spent on PR bring back $200 in value?

Not surprisingly, he confirmed that this is important. However, he threw out a big but..."But, too many communicators are measuring things that I don't care about. And, most of them feel they have to show a return so much quicker than is realistic. So, the result is that costly measurement programs, that offer me very little insight into whether a campaign actually could work, are presented to me.  As a result, we waste money and I lose respect for them."

He also thinks it’s fascinating that communicators are typically very artful in presenting ideas and campaigns. Yet, they fumble all over themselves with ugly, much too lengthy PowerPoint metrics presentations. These boring meetings provide way too much analytical information, yet very little prescriptive strategies into how the program can be improved. That is one of his big pet peeves.

His next topic for me was a good one. He referred to it as, "Stop squeezing your square peg into my round hole."

That means much of his experience with professional marketers is based on them pushing (or selling) in services, products, disciplines and even campaigns that just don't really fit into his business needs. The problem is that many communicators think alike and try to solve business challenges with the same tool from the overly used tool box rather than dig extra deep into the business issue at hand and create a new tool that really has a chance to succeed.

He cited as an over simplified example the ad agency executive (who used to work for him) who thinks that to penetrate deep into consumer markets, a full blown ad campaign is a must. What he never really understood is that the trust issues (or lack thereof) within his particular industry are so egregious, that commercial messages are largely unbelievable and can work against a company if not handled correctly.

I had the fortune of asking a number of other topical questions. And, his responses were equally hard hitting (and most definitely welcomed.)

I hope to have many more discussions like this in the near future. This type of one-on-one market research is really invaluable. It allows agency executives to "stop drinking their own Kool-Aid" and conduct real account planning based on what the ultimate client really cares about. Because nothing else really matters.

Because of credible digital communications, I never looked “back”

Every few months my aching lower back acts up again. Like many, I’ve tried most therapies, from acupuncture  to intense physical therapy to regular chiropractor sessions. All of these have helped in making my back feel whole again for 4-8 month periods. But unfortunately, none gave any type of real lasting powers.

Ask 10 different people for advice on back therapies and you’ll get 10 different answers. Go on the internet looking for solutions and you’ll only find yourself tired, frustrated and more confused about the myriad of “guaranteed” procedures and doctors who can supposedly “cure” your pain. I was just about ready to end my Internet Google search, when this series of videos hit my screen.

; ;

In case you don’t have the time or desire to watch it, Dr. Howard Goodman (a back physician and chiropractor) discusses how something called spinal decompression can possibly help those who have inflammation or herniated discs (I have the former). What caught my eye about this series of videos (and kept me watching) is the simple, easy to understand and credible manner with which this specialist comes across. Instead of guaranteeing any type of magic solution, or trying to impress me with high brow MD knowledge, Dr. Goodman calmly explains to me what decompression is and how it can really help SOME patients (but not everyone.) He discusses it in the context of an alternative to surgery and then walks the viewer through symptoms that a candidate would have (and why.) Lastly, in layman’s terms, he describes the end benefit that this procedure can accomplish during a 6-8 week therapy timetable. I also like the fact that the entire intro video is only three minutes in length. (That’s plenty of time to explain to me the basics.) All the videos can be accessed from YouTube as well.

There’s nothing new about creating YouTube videos to educate and promote products, services and thought leadership. I just think that many in the medical field haven’t really figured out how to leverage this powerful Internet tool to effectively communicate credibly with target consumer audiences. With so many different medical “solutions” continually pushed to us, it’s incredibly hard to know which one is believable and really fits the problem at hand, or just pure snake oil (and there are quite of a few of those on the Internet these days.) So, guarantees and/or cocky promotions about medical pedigrees and language that I don’t understand are sure fire turnoffs for me.

After watching this video, I went to the Web site of New York Rehabilitation Center (which luckily happens to be physically located a block away from where I work,) and was further educated about the way decompression could really work for me. I also read articles (posted on the site) and did my own analysis on the doctors there to feel comfortable that everything seemed legitimate. In many ways, Dr. Goodman and his staff did everything right to successfully create a credible social media offering. The large amount of positive reviews about this video certainly helps to reinforce that. I think that others in the medical field should take notice.

Will this work for me? That’s a good question. I’m on to my 5th decompression appointment and the old back is actually starting to feel better. But, only time (6-8 weeks) will tell. I’ll be sure to report back to you how I’m feeling then.

ABC Network Reeks of Hypocrisy

I love this story: “At ABC, Cougars Are O.K., but Not Always.” ABC really looks dumb for how it handled its big  cat controversy, known as 'Cougar Town.' For those who haven’t heard, this comedy about middle aged women targeting younger, male studs in their sexual pursuits,  is the network’s latest attempt to find a new prime time hit. 'Cougar' is actually a much touted term these days (in bars and night clubs) to describe those ‘older’ women who date, or chase, considerably younger men.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Right? Not according to ABC executives, who feel that the content is appropriate for night time network television. In fact, the network has even allowed some big time advertisers (like Cadbury Adams) to run ‘Cougar themed’ ads during the premiere. As an example, in one risqué Halls Refresh candy commercial, an ordinary middle-aged woman is given a candy drop by her son’s nerdy college roommate. All the while, the two stare at each other intensely while suggestively sucking their drops. Oh boy… get the picture?

Whoa…Disney (ABC’s owner) didn’t deem this subject matter too over the top for network, nighttime TV?  I guess not. That’s why it rings so hypocritical that the network decided to turn away Cougarlife.com, another similar themed, wannabe advertiser, which seemed to be a natural fit for this show. ABC executives issued this one sentence response in defending their dismissive actions, “The ABC Television Network did not accept the CougarLife.com commercial based upon the fact that the Web site had not launched at that time of submission, and there was concern about its proposed content.”

Yet, according to those ‘in the know,’ that statement was a ruse. CougarLife.com had been fully seen and reviewed by ABC head honchos (and, in fact, it is a pretty standard dating web site – albeit for older women looking for younger men.) So, it seems that the network looks awfully silly. It doesn’t find the content from its show or candy commercial offensive, but worried that a web site promoting the same values, would be. And, of course, the owners of Cougarlife.com are pretty annoyed (as they should be). Claudia Opdenkelder, president of this web site, summed it up nicely in these few words, “So they’re comfortable with this in fiction, but not in reality.”

What a crock. ABC is stuck on some high and mighty morality cloud that makes absolutely no sense. The network surely knew that the very nature of this show would create an enormous amount of controversy among family and religion oriented groups who have loudly objected to its anti-family values theme (and it has.) Yet, it held firm, took its beating and stood behind this show because of a belief that ‘cougars’ do not cross the morality line and are fair game in the hunt for greater ratings in prime time TV. That’s why it should never have turned down any advertiser which supports the same values, cause and general content as well.

Of course, Cougarlife.com did not take this sitting down. The web site is urging visitors to sign an online petition to get the network to change its mind (which has yet to happen.) In this spirit of ‘all publicity is good publicity,’ I asked myself the question – is all this hoopla actually good for ABC and it’s new hit show? Ordinarily, I might say yes (because it will certainly cause more viewers to watch upcoming episodes.) But, with so many morality groups watching ABC’s every move, there’s no doubt that Disney will now feel a ton of pressure in the worst of ways. And, that won’t be fun for network executives.

If A Client Asks For The Moon…

Today's guest post is by Michael Dresner, CEO, Peppercom’s Brand² Squared Licensing Division.

MeasuringUP has recounted lessons from 'Mad Men' we can take into the office on Monday mornings.  This past  week’s episode was no different (SPOILER ALERT for those DVR junkies out there).  A long-nurtured relationship between Don Draper and Conrad Hilton shockingly unraveled in one fell swoop during a formal agency pitch.  Don was flabbergasted.  So was Lili, my wife, who watches Mad Men as religiously as I do.  Muttering screenwriting inconsistencies, she fell asleep.  I didn’t.

Many years ago I had a jewel of a client – a national restaurant chain that laid out an aggressive plan to evolve into a lifestyle brand.  For an account person the assignment was exciting.  And my rapport with their marketing director seemed impenetrable.  We were in similar places professionally.  She just moved to a city from which I relocated.  The passion between our two respective companies was mutual.  I could do no wrong.  It was like, well, walking on the moon (reference to the 'Mad Men' subplot herein). 

She sent me a deck late one afternoon summarizing her new strategy and asked for my feedback.  I stayed until the wee hours of the morning analyzing each page thoroughly, documenting (many) areas where I felt she was misdirected, and sent a comprehensive response long after midnight which was constructive and kind but utterly candid.  Without being self-aggrandizing, I was really happy with my work.

The response e-mail hit me at 8 am the following morning. “You don’t understand our business.  You don’t see what I’m trying to accomplish.  You clearly haven’t read the materials I have sent to you.  I am concerned about this agency relationship.”  I was dumbfounded.  Our analysis was great.

Following the #1 rule of delivering bad news quickly, I brought the e-mail to a senior manager, along with my analysis.  He spent 60 seconds looking at everything.  “You did not listen to her,” she said.  “You brought no one else into this.  You did not give her what she asked for.  And she may fire us.”  A few months later, she did.

During this season of 'Mad Men' Don Draper was courted by Conrad Hilton.  Meetings at the Waldorf.  Trips to Italy.  Drinks at all hours of the night.  Don’s ego inflated.  Whose wouldn’t?  Yet during this courtship, Mr. Hilton made his own professional style very clear.  He was a micromanager.  He was a control freak.  And when he asked anyone for anything, no room for challenge existed.  Don witnessed that across many contexts.  So when Conrad reviewed the boards for his brand, he asked why Sterling Cooper didn’t take Hilton to the moon.  That’s what he asked Don Draper to deliver in earlier meetings.  So what did Don do?  Don still pushed his work that didn’t include the moon.  Don made a patronizing comment about incorporating the moon into an already existing board.  The new business opportunity ended then and there – and the same thing would happen today.

Mistake #1:  Don Draper allowed strong rapport to make him think he could do no wrong.  Mistake #2:  Don plunged into this new business pitch by himself, as if he were a one-person show, without ever thinking that maybe the smart people around him could have helped digest Conrad’s wants and needs during the meetings and drinks preceding the pitch.  Mistake #3:  Don heard a client ask for the moon and didn’t come close to responding – in neither strategy nor creative.  Mistake #4:  Don took Conrad’s legitimate, and polite, questions about where the moon concept was, and Don (rather than apologizing, retrenching, or opening up a dialogue) grew defensive and told Conrad that “this was a great campaign.”  As if Hilton was already Don’s brand.  Any prospective client would get up and leave.  Mine did.

With regret, I believe many of the inappropriate situations that take place on 'Mad Men' remain part of our current culture, perhaps on a more subdued level.  Don’s failure to win this enormous client opportunity – despite his obvious depth of talent and hunger for new business – happens all the time.  Talent and hunger are easily replicated.  Engaging a team to listen to client needs and wants is a special skill but no less important.  Regardless of expertise area, marketing service firms must remember that.

Way too bullish on this bull

I just read that Bank of America is about to bring Merrill's renowned bull logo back to life. Yup. In this  quarter, the global bank (that is still in a heap of trouble for buying Merrill Lynch) will spend upwards of $20 million to reinvigorate (maybe more like resuscitate) this legendary Wall Street symbol for stakeholders around the world.

If someone had asked me, I would have said, "Forget about it."

While Merrill isn't despised anywhere nearly as much as much as Lehman Brothers or AIG, it certainly falls into the same general failure bucket. Remember, Merrill only survived because its leader (John Thain) moved quickly to find an acquisition partner in those frightening, spiraling out of control, stock market days last year. Merrill's name and reputation was then beaten to a pulp as news came out that this same leader and his top managers had taken billions in bonuses, all the while the company's stock plummeted and its core business came close to bankruptcy. BofA then took the hit for swallowing Merrill, as its leaders were seen as naïve for being so in the dark as to just how much secret debt existed in the once proud financial giant.

Putting all of that aside, this financial calamity will not soon be forgotten. Americans do have short memories, but my view is that even in five or ten years down the road, many will still conjure up images of the worst behavior that took place within our financial services industry during this near depression drop. Merrill Lynch and it's now infamous bull logo will only bring back those terribly negative, frightful feelings that investors felt in the fall of 2008. And, that's not good.

I'm sure the marketing folks at Bank of America conducted a lot of worthwhile research to show that the bull has enormous brand visibility and awareness among audiences everywhere. My guess is that they figure the brand can be rehabilitated if enough money is thrown at it. Maybe they are right.

But, I'm skeptical. Most everything on Wall Street needs a fresh beginning these days. And my feeling is that the bull should spend its remaining days in some unknown pasture, grazing on millions of worthless mortgage backed securities shares.    

Publicity that you just can’t buy

This, ("Daly’s Return Comes With a Fashion Statement,") from yesterday's NY Times is simply a great piece of publicity for LoudMouthGolf.com. As you can see, this niche golfing apparel company exploited the fact that the irreverent golfer John Daly has decided to wear its very own outlandish colored pants at the upcoming US Open. While it isn’t clear whether Daly is receiving sponsorship money for doing this, it doesn’t really matter. The photo opportunity by itself makes for a great story.

This type of exposure might happen once in a business’ lifetime (or never at all). And, that’s why companies like LoudMouthGolf.com need to make sure they “milk it” for every ounce of value. If done right, these 15 minutes of fame can substantially increase a company’s reputation from a non- existent brand to one with very high awareness. And, sales can skyrocket.

A similar (but much more impactful) opportunity arose for J. Crew months ago, when the First Lady decided that she would sport J. Crew casual outfits when appearing on stage and in many public forums. That instantly created a huge sales demand for the exact same outfits that Ms. Obama appeared in. And J. Crew jumped into high gear by making sure the world understood what the First Lady’s clothes preference is. I must have seen 25 national media stories about this somewhat superficial story. If I’m not mistaken, J. Crew also created an online/offline ad campaign to acknowledge and promote this honor as well. 

So, you’re now wondering how your company can be so fortunate to win the publicity lottery like this? Well, here’s my take on three key ingredients needed for this type of award winning recipe:

1.) How does my product connect to something extremely timely and trendy?
With LoudMouthGolf.com it’s clearly the U.S Open. With J. Crew, a pure blast of luck connected the company to the presidential election. There’s always some opportunity to connect your product to a timely holiday, seasonal milestone, political controversy or business event taking place. You need to think about what the hook might be for why your product would be deemed interesting or important around that tie-in and how it should be positioned.

2.) What famous/infamous or controversial figure would tie nicely into my product and this trend?
Now, what famous or controversial person would really create visibility or an emotional reaction or just laughter if he/she/they actually decided to use your product? That’s the question. With that, you need to make sure that this partnership would actually emit your brand in the right way to key audiences. You might want to actually brainstorm a laundry list of possible candidates and then write down the pros and cons of each representing your brand (officially or unofficially).

3.) What is the win/win for all parties involved?
Finally, you need to really think about why this person might endorse or care about your product. And, what’s the real story for media, or the blogosphere or even your end consumer? We refer to this as the “win/win.” What end benefit does each party involved receive? Is it pure publicity opportunities for the celebrity? Does the story make sense for media because it’s so beyond unusual? Once you understand that, then create a packaging for this offer or story that will be simple to understand and impactful to implement.

Here’s a closing point to think about. The phrase I used above, (15 minutes of fame,) is just that. So, when all is said and done, those 15 minutes come and go very quickly. The most savvy marketers/business people are always thinking ahead and have figured out a way to use that initial 15 minutes as merely a high octane introduction to their brand. They then use that new found notoriety (and credibility) to consistently develop a steady drumbeat of ongoing publicity and successful marketing endeavors to build the business further.

Marketing Contributes to Growth of Brand Trial- But to Excess and Abuse?

Today, Michael Dresner, president of our licensing division, has written the following special guest post.

A March 2009 study in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine revealed that “among those who don’t drink alcohol, ownership of alcohol-branded merchandise predicts both the initiation of alcohol use and binge drinking.” Key licensed products of focus– and subsequent controversy– are baseball caps and clothing.

The chicken/egg debate– whether marketing influences behavior, or merely reflects it– has raged since advertisers started purchasing media space. Let’s not kid ourselves– if marketers didn’t think their efforts would generate awareness and trial, they wouldn’t waste their time on ads, sweepstakes, websites or licensed merchandise.

So, I find merit to the argument that alcohol-branded merchandise leads to product trial. That said, I just don’t believe in the validity of research linking licensed wearables to binge drinking. Our agency has seen enough market research protocols in which clients manipulate the variables and questionnaire to get the answers they want to hear. Hence, my theory:  the Archives wanted to promote the link between t-shirts, hats and binge drinking within academic and business media vehicles.  Otherwise they would not have sent out the press release. 

Efforts to curb binge drinking should be honored. My question is– why is licensed merchandise an area of such vital focus? Full disclosure– my experience with adolescent psychology and substance abuse is low. But doesn’t common sense indicate that binge drinking– a disease– is a byproduct of peer pressure, education, home life, genetics, and mental health?  If that is true, shouldn’t the Archives be spending more time on those issues? 

Licensing plays a role in product trial. No question. But trial and excess are two different subject matters. Licensed product plays an insignificant, and arguably non-existent, role in excess and abuse. Will the absence of such licensed product take away the other factors leading to binge drinking? No way.

If I sound like an advocate of licensing– it’s because I am. People who love the Corona brand should have the opportunity to enjoy its t-shirts, hats, bathing suits, and beach towels. Corona should not have to cease its merchandising strategy because people find an unrelated way to sadly abuse alcohol. I am also an advocate of objective market research, particularly efforts without underlying motive that pinpoint genuine causal factors of damaging health problems. 

I hope the Archives wish to reduce binge drinking.  To solve the problem, I also hope they focus on what really causes the affliction in the first place, rather than wasting resources displacing responsibility on inanimate objects that nobody is under any obligation to buy.

This is not the year to advertise on the Super Bowl

A few days back, The New York Times advertising column featured Denny’s and some of the other companies who’ve chosen to advertise in this year’s Super Bowl. Every year, marketing and business pundits debate whether this one-time venue’s premium advertising slot is worth the cost. The golden question is: Does it provide a real return on the huge cost associated with it?

Almost always, I take the pessimist’s view point of this debate. Unless the advertiser’s sole goal is to immediately drive one time traffic to a web site, or one time limited sales of a product, I just don’t see the bang for the buck (and even then the benefit won’t be higher than the cost). Most marketers leverage the Super Bowl both for ongoing brand building and the hope that it will create a spike that will lead to a continual rise in product sales. There may be some instances where the latter has happened, but I’d like someone to prove it to me.

This year, the advertising “opportunity” seems almost ludicrous. In the toughest of times, NBC has actually raised the rate of a 30-second spot from $2.7 million to $3 million (gee, what a deal.) One agency executive believes there is real value to be had here and asks the rhetorical question, “Where else can I hit 97 million people?”

That may be true (although I question whether a Cardinal/Steelers game will have that type of viewer turnout,) but I believe there are three important reasons why the Super Bowl makes even less sense now than in years past:

1.) The PR hit – Almost every company is cutting costs and laying off its employees. We’re talking about millions of people out of work. It would be an understatement to say that the general mood in America is somber (at best.) How will these advertisers be viewed by their employees, investors and other key constituents when they are seen as frivolously spending $3 million in 30 seconds, while so much turmoil is taking place in the background?

2.) The price actually went up – Give me a break. I just don’t know how any organization can justify raising prices now. Most have actually created cost concessions with the addition of greater benefits in their products/services. I’d probably walk away or terminate the relationship with any partner/vendor that had the audacity to actually raise prices instead.

3.) Use the money more strategically – Consumers are buying less and they are more selective about what they buy. Think about how far $3 million could stretch through a more strategic marketing program that is directly aligned with point of sales or thought leadership to make prospects/customers trust the company’s products/services more. I’d say that most advertisers would actually do better by spending the whole enchilada on events at their restaurants or at retail designed to create more direct publicity and interest in retail sales than through an ad that will be over in the blink of an eye. Just so it doesn’t seem like I’m only pushing public relations approaches, I think direct marketing (email, leveraging the Web), digital campaigns) could provide longer, more sustainable ROI as well.

Consumers may enjoy watching some of these lighter commercials. Does some brief laughter support the millions being spent? No.

There’s nothing good about advertising that is forced on us

This morning I was in the middle of some Internet research for a new blog post. Then, three times in a row, I was forced to watch various ads as I clicked onto media sites. I was so annoyed that I changed the topic of choice today.

Instead, let’s discuss the effectiveness of forced advertising on the consumer.

Site number one was Forbes.com. Before I could enter it, a full page Sony ad appeared. Forbes made me watch this dynamic ad for about six seconds. When I realized that it still wasn’t close to being over, I clicked out of Forbes’ web site. I certainly don’t plan on heading back there anytime soon. And, I have no clue what Sony was advertising because I never cared to look. However, I am annoyed with both companies right now.

Site number two was Politico. A streaming America Express video started as I clicked on a link to see the introduction of a particular story. Ironically, American Express’ intro was focused on how valuable my time is. Really? If AMEX truly cared about my precious time, then this financial services company wouldn’t have forced me to watch a commercial that I never asked for.

Finally, site number three was MSN.com.  This time I listened to Chuck tell me about why his financial planners truly listen to my investment concerns. The problem I have with Chuck (Charles Schwab that is) is that his ad impeded me from collecting some quick information before I had to run out of the house to do some errands. So, I clicked off and ran out.

Many media and other online information providers offer free content. The unspoken deal with consumers is that forced advertising is the “small price we pay” to provide us with this wonderful benefit. Forced advertising allows for advertisers to realize more time spent by consumers on their ads and that means the world. But, the obvious reality is that these ads completely work against the brands they are promoting... because this time spent is anything but quality. Most people (like this blogger) are in a hurry and just want to use the Internet to find information that we desire. So, when something unexpected is forced upon us and takes up our valuable time, we become negative. Sometimes we become very negative. Now, why would any company want to change its brand from a being in positive or neutral position into one that is completely negative with a given consumer? It makes no sense.

It’s so ironic. Web 2.0 is completely about the consumer having all the choices (and thus, all the power.) Yet, advertisers who force this strategy completely break all the rules. And, the amazing thing is that I don’t see it stopping any time soon.