Typically I have always been against the “push” style of advertising, mentioned by Wilken and Sinclair in the “Waiting for the Kiss of Life” piece. This type of advertising, defined as “a subscription-based campaign where recipients are sent mass messages over an ongoing period” (Wilkes/Sinclair 431) seems very intrusive, and somewhat bothersome. , in the “COBRAs” piece, a direct correlation between the products that we discuss, inquire (YouTube), or “like” (Facebook) and the advertising that we see on social media and other online sources is presented. I guess this means that to a certain degree, we are responsible for our own intrusive advertising. *sigh* I guess it only makes sense that if I “like” Pizza Hut on Facebook, I will now see the special of the week, or other advertisements seeking to gain my patronage. I guess this could be considered fair. That is the risk that comes along with engaging in social networking, and sharing my personal likes and dislikes. But to tell me that I may receive on-the-spot advertising based on making public appearances? Does this mean that I’ll receive advertising for alcohol when I walk into a liquor store? Will I receive a text message or e-mail for a chat line if I walk into an adult store? I am not sure how I feel about this type of advertising, although technology certainly has the capacity to make it a reality.
I was somewhat intrigued by the writing about the use of YouTube for public service announcements. I honestly have not seen very many public service announcements on YouTube, so that is something that I will have to look further into. However, I have seen many personal channels. Although I do not technically “follow” any YouTube producers, there are several channels on YouTube that I do keep up with. While the majority of them are either persons who post footage of live performances (mainly band) or athletic highlights, I do watch quite a few YouTube producers who use their channels as more of a “visual blog”. I’ve been highly entertained by the social commentary of some of these producers. While some use their channel as mainly a way to vent or discuss issues, many of them do hope to gain popularity, and ultimately gain a cult-following of fans that ultimately may lead to business ventures.
The potential for advertising when one physically enters a place of business is an interesting invasion that mobile phone users with GPS activated may have to worry about in the future. Of course, it will be justified with the potential savings you will be able to take advantage of. There may even be digital coupons included. That means, when you walk into a liquor store, your phone will be blasted with a list of all the liquors on sale for that day. When you go into Kroger, you can have a list of all the special deals! Part of me thinks this is a nice way of keeping customers informed, but on the other hand, it is a terrible inroad for the corporate takeover of my mobile phone.
Although mobile advertisement can be annoying and intrusive, it is actually facilitating the flow of information, in this case, the ads. I have to say where the interest of consumers and companies would be the best place for both parties. But, still how subtle marketers are the key to lure customers, although I cannot think of the optimum balance
I really like your point about us being responsible in some part to our own advertising. It hadn’t occured to me before, but it is a valid point that the type of advertisments we receive are in part due to message we have sent out over the internet. The question for me becomes, am I being advertised to in a way that reciprocates the level of messages I have sent out, or am I being bombarded with advertisments that impeed my ability to enjoy online activity without getting in the way? I feel like one action deserves another, not five others.
That’s an interesting point about reciprocity, Meagan. It does seem like we often get a disproportionate response in terms of how much advertising is directed at us based on what we send out.