PERSPECTIVE - Paying audiences to put up with ads leads to bad work

I know it’s unlikely (well, it never happens to me, anyway), but say you were walking down the street and a complete stranger came up to you and said: ’I’ll pay you to have sex with me.’ What would you think?

I know it’s unlikely (well, it never happens to me, anyway), but

say you were walking down the street and a complete stranger came up to

you and said: ’I’ll pay you to have sex with me.’ What would you

think?



I’ll bet a penny to your pound that, even if it was a gorgeous babe and

you jumped at the offer, in the back of your mind would be this nagging

question: what’s so wrong with this person that they have to pay for sex

- have they got a rash or something?



You might think I am stretching things too far, but I suggest there is a

parallel between this scenario and the idea put forward last week by a

Swedish phone company of providing customers with free phone calls in

return for making them listen to ads. For those of you who don’t know

about it, Gratistelefon’s plan works like this. When you make your call

you dial a freephone number, followed by the number you wish to

contact.



While you’re waiting to be connected, an ad is played. After a minute’s

conversation the call is interrupted by a ten-second ad, and then again

after every three minutes.



For advertisers, the logic is simple: the customer is captive. They

can’t zap, they can’t turn the page and they can’t get out of the way.

All of which is true and all of which is, no doubt, very seductive to

the advertiser.



But, and it is a big but, there’s that nagging doubt in the back of your

mind. It is this: are the ads so bad that the advertiser has to pay us

to listen to them?



Now consider the way things work at present. By and large, most of us

are happy - most of the time - to watch or listen to ads for free. Why

is this? For the most part - and I generalise here - it is because the

ads are entertaining, fun and, sometimes, even informative. And why are

they like that? Because advertisers know that, without a captive

audience, they have to work that little bit harder to seduce and charm

their prey.



On the whole, ads that do this are more effective than ads that bludgeon

you to death. I have no evidence of my own for this, just a gut feeling,

but I suggest that anyone who wants to pick a fight with me on this

point should read the feature about ad avoiders on page 32.



But if you flip the whole process 180 degrees so that people are trapped

into listening to your ads, the need to charm and seduce the consumer

will disappear. If, like the Gratistelefon advertisers, you know your

audience is captive, what incentive do you have to produce a good ad,

one that people will actually enjoy being exposed to? None. In short,

the system becomes a rationalisation for bad work, just as advertisers

who say ’forget the creative, we’ll just throw lots of media money at

this’ are actually abrogating their responsibilities to woo their

audience.



Don’t get me wrong. I’ve no doubt that Gratistelefon will find plenty of

consumers who want free calls. But they’ll find something else to do

when those dreadful ads come on.



Become a member of Campaign from just £45 a quarter

Get the very latest news and insight from Campaign with unrestricted access to campaignlive.co.uk ,plus get exclusive discounts to Campaign events

Become a member

Looking for a new job?

Get the latest creative jobs in advertising, media, marketing and digital delivered directly to your inbox each day.

Create an Alert Now

Partner content

Share

1 Job description: Digital marketing executive

Digital marketing executives oversee the online marketing strategy for their organisation. They plan and execute digital (including email) marketing campaigns and design, maintain and supply content for the organisation's website(s).