It’s an interesting approach to the dynamic of interruption, but not to that of engagement I think. The logic behind it is very similar to the reasoning behind TV on Demand: you don’t want to be interrupted, you just pay a little more, and you won’t be. Instead of paying for that from the consumer perspective, an advertiser now comes up with the cash to give me the experience that I want.
Very clever indeed. And foremost an act of ‘buying out the competitors’. Is it engagement? No. At least not from the advertisers perspective. I’m not at all engaged in his message, but much more engaged in the message of the story. But hey, I for one like them for ‘giving me’ an uninterrupted segment. I might even extend them the courtesy to listen a bit longer when they want to tell me something I don’t want to hear. They’ve set the first step, now let’s wait and see if they set the second too…
Image
If you read the following report http://www.lunchoverip.com/2007/09/picnic07-stefan.html on the PICNIC presentation “Trends in Communication and Entertainment” by Stefana Broadbent you see that interruption isn’t really the issue; having to choose is. Broadbent argues that the industry is actually taking the wrong approach (like in this example). Following her reasoning a permanent onscreen commercial in the background of the show would probably be less interrupting and actually more engaging.
Hmm, I don’t agree. As far as I understand her reasoning she is saying that in the context of the living room media and communication technologies are moving into the background. People experience it much more as wall paper in their daily lives and are not paying attention to it at all. While the TV might be on, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are watching it. Putting ’something in the background on those screens’ is not what she means I think.
What she does say is that people have routines, and that offering people USELESS choices is counter effective .However, as soon as people have made a choice for something, they are focused on it. They’re constantly negotiating what to put in their foregrounds. Meaning, imo, if I have chosen to watch Heroes, I am very much engaged in that show. But being forced to step out of it: thus interrupting my routine, makes me want to push it away. I am now forced to make a USELESS choice to switch the channel and avoid the interruption in search for something new to put in the foreground.
So I would say, that her presentation actually, supports the thesis that interruption might work, but only when it is relevant. That brings us to an interesting dynamic as well, that Google has expanded on very much: they present ‘commercial interruptions’ in you search results. But, hey, they might be relevant to me and thus grab my full attention. Maybe those messages are succeeding in stepping from the background into the foreground.
I don’t know: how would in your argument a commercial in the background be engaging???
You can view Stefana’s presentation on PICNIC here (13th presentation, she starts at 58 mins. in the video)
I think a commercial ‘in the background’ of the show could be engaging if you would combine product placement with video-tagging; allowing the user to actually see the product in action within the context of the show.
Can you give an example of that? Is the main character in a show that is drinking a Coke the kind of thing that you’re referring to? Or the new Bond-car? I guess what I’m trying to ask is: how can you make product placement relevant to me?
Anyone any ideas?
I think all the content - from the car, to the drink, to the painting in the background - can be relevant to someone at some point in time. Product placement doesn’t have to be so obvious (and intrusive!) as long as it is accessible. Until now stylists, trendwatchers and reporters determine what should be put in or picked up from a show or movie (see the aftermath of the Bugaboo appearing on Sex and the City). If you could do it yourself it immediately becomes more relevant. Another example: in Starbucks cafes the single most asked question is “what song is it that’s playing?” They therefore devised the Starbucks-plugin on the iPhone, allowing you to see the ten most recently played songs in the cafe you’re in.
That’s a good example indeed. The music is an integral part of the Starbucks experience and is thus relevant to the consumer as well. So with relevancy comes access, great point. However, I do wonder if every medium can provide any access to any product. For instance: I don’t think the people that visit Starbuck’s would ask what washing powder is being used. Washing powder is not part of the experience that Starbuck’s provides its customers. Should you thus get rid of anything that doesn’t support your brand? Making choices? Context defined by content… Yes, the Bond car has become content, but a drink that can be easily replaced by any other drink not…
I still think that even the washing powder can become relevant (to some, not all) depending on the context. If, for example, you are an environmentalist (which more and more people are) you might refrain from Starbucks paper cups, but do want to drink from a clean glass or mug. How do you determine if it’s clean up to your standards? And how do you know the cleaning agent is environmentally friendly as well?
Another example in the same category comes from clothing company H&M. When they set out to reduce their impact on the environment, they found out that most energy was waisted by the buyers who washed there clothes at high temperatures (conforming to the labels in the cloths). The stated temperatures were of course maximum temperatures, but still they changed the labeling so people now know what temperature is sufficient.
My point is that by allowing the user to decide for himself what additional (commercial) information is relevant in relation to what is being watched/listened to/felt, increases the overall experience. And of course marketers and advertisers can guide this, but they shouldn’t take over completely.
You might be right, although I do have my doubts…
An interesting dynamic arises. Especially with the Starbucks example. I think that Starbucks is foremost a brand and not a platform that advertisers can use to advertise their products. But, indeed, Starbucks is doing a lot with product placement. However, allowing the ‘wrong’ company to advertise might lead to alienation of the core community of Starbucks, as Brynne has written about before. The question is: within that Starbucks environment would you as the platform want to be associated with washing powder as that might cloud your own brand definition.
…still thinking a bit more about access and engagement/interruption…