Clamping Down On Brands (new online advertising regulations)

 “Since 2008, the ASA said it has received more than 4,500 complaints about online marketing which did not fall under its remit until now”. (Halliday J, 2011)

 As you will probably already have some degree of knowledge if you have any interest in the advertising industry you will probably know that ASA stands for the Advertising Standards Authority. They are the UK’s regulators of ads and have the authority to pull any ad from viewing if they feel that it fails to meet the criteria presented in the code of practice. Being advertisers the ASA can be your enemy, restricting what ideas can actually be allowed making a creative’s job a lot harder.

 March 1^st of this year was the day that the ASA now gained the power to regulate “marketing communications on companies’ own websites and in other third party space under their control, such as Facebook and Twitter, and will now have to adhere to the non-broadcast advertising rules as set out in the CAP Code”. (ASA, 2011) This suggests that now brands will even have to be careful when considering advertising in the digital world. Before they could put out virtually anything they wanted. This  included adverts which were previously banned from television for added recognition such as Beyonce’s banned perfume commercial which could previously uploaded to sites such as YouTube and achieve comments from the general public and in turn generate more brand awareness.

 The reason for this huge decision taking place is that there have been thousands of complaints in the past few years concerning the misleading of words on websites and in particular social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. The ASA will now have the power to extend the advertising code to include online advertising must not “harm, mislead or offended people” (BBC, 2011)

However, there has been a little confusion as of late about the effectiveness of this regulation procedure as mention by Vincent-Wayne Mitchell (professor of consumer marketing) who argues that “I could have an advert up on the internet for a week or for an hour, cause widespread confusion, get sales from that, and then withdraw it. The only punishment that the ASA has is withdrawal, but I can have that as part of my own marketing strategy”. This to my is a fair point in which advertisers can play to their advantage where consumers need to see a particular ad before time runs out creating  an accelerated ‘Buzz’ towards a particular product.

In order to deal with this the ASA have decided to create a ‘name and shame policy’ where persistent offenders could have material removed from search engines as well as warning the public of the companies that to not abide to the code.(BBC, 2010) Negative exposure is a brands worst nightmare when considering the success of their company suggesting that this will be an effective tactic.

Before, brands could comfortably work outside just their own brand website by communicating with their fans though social networks such as Twitter and Facebook. Celebrity endorsements are a great example of this where by celebrities such as Kim Kardasian, Mike Tyson and 50 Cent are paid to tweet on behalf of companies as followers will then feel that these are the products/services in which they should be buying into. This to me is unethical in the online world in terms of social media due to celebrities advertising products that they don’t necessarily believe in, taking advantage of followers who look up to them as role models, emulating their every move. When considering this the ASA’s idea to regulate the online world is a positive one.

As mentioned in my previous blogs social media is a great way for added brand recognition, creating strong relationships with consumers though social networks thus gaining a high degree of brand loyalty. However, brands are now going to have to be more carful and abide to the code of practice for online advertising if they what it to continue to be an effective tool. One step out of line and the ASA has the power to give them the negative brand recognition that every company constantly tries its best to stay away from.

References

BBC. (2011). Advertising watchdog to monitor website words. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12597934. Last accessed 22 March 2011.

Joey, J. (2011). Twitter and Facebook Users Complain about Online Marketing. Available: http://www.thatagency.com/design-studio-blog/2011/04/twitter-and-facebook-users-complain-about-online-marketing/. Last accessed 20 March 2011.

Hilliday, J. (2011). Twitter and Facebook under scrutiny as ASA polices online marketing. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/01/twitter-facebook-online-marketing-asa. Last accessed 20 March 2011.

SSM Student. (2011). Is Paying Celebrities to Tweet Ethical? . Available: http://prosintraining.com/ssm/2011/04/is-paying-celebrities-to-tweet-ethical/. Last accessed 20 March 2011.

One BIG happy family (Public Sphere)

Originally, the ‘Public Sphere’ was formulated by Habermas (1962) during the 18^th century as a means of connecting the public with democracy, giving a voice to those who were before isolated from any opinion sharing.  Habermas describes it as “The coming together of people and the discussion of ideas, often related to governance and demographic ideals.” Poor, N (2005). This firstly occurred as a form of socialising and topic conversation in public meetings, yet as commercialisation grew from the press, so did its corruption through advertising and the entertainment industry. Poor N (2005).

 Today, with technology advances constantly evolving arguments have been created surrounding the Public Sphere being linked to the internet in areas such as the blogging entries that you are reading now. However, many scholars have discussed its legitimacy regarding the connection of people from all around world.

 Habermas (1962) states originally that for a public sphere to exist it must be comprised with 3 basic elements which include:

1. Needs to be formed through discussion
2. New space of discussion which before has been excluded
3. Considered on the basis of its quality and not on the basis of the power of the speaker

 The internet accounts for all of these areas with scholars suggesting that the internet provides certain additions to Habermas work. Banker claims that “The Web content provides adequate visibility within smaller communities, and while also allowing quality content to filter up to a broad audience”. This summarises the argument that the internet consists of multiple mini publics rather that one overall one yet can still generate large amount of public togetherness.

 Arguments against the Public Sphere theory are acknowledged by Papacharissi (2002) who claims that literacy and the public’s access are likely to be unequal which links to certain audience fragmentation. Another issue is that online public spheres have the potential to face problems from corruption by commercialisation. Poor N, (2005)

 A recent example of this relates to social media and the public sphere theory. Through the social network Facebook, members created a group in which people were able to be a part of which would eventfully take over and control the success of the music industry for the end of that year.  In the UK X-Factor is a million pound television programme in which millions are pumped into the programme in order to create a buzz and inevitably result in the Television companies and executives such a Simon Cowell earning a huge profit. Rebellion took place in 2010 as a group was set up which suggested to vote for music artists ‘Rage against the Machine’ to win the Christmas number one in an attempt to destroy the marketing efforts which have been successful for the last 4 years. This is an example of a success story which undermines efforts of theories such as the political economy.

 From an advertising point of view the theory of the public sphere can be utilised to create a certain ‘buzz’ from consumers yet can also have a negative effect as discussed where consumers  have the power to snatch and potential success this from companies/organisations. I feel as though when associating public spheres which the internet they are overall fragmented obviously not allowing everyone to be a part of all spheres. However, if you are a consumer interested in a certain topic areas then you may be likely to go out of your way to be a part of a public sphere evolving the growth of the topic area.

 References

 Hindman, M. (2008). What is the Online Public Sphere Good For?. The Hyperlinked Society. 1 (1), 9.

 Streete, L., 20^th December 2009How Social Media controlled the music industry in the UK..!. 15^th March 2011. Avaliable from: http://www.leonstreete.com/Blog/How-Social-Media-controlled-the-music-industry-in-the-UK.html?print=1&tmpl=component.

 Poor, N., 2005. Mechanisms of an online public sphere: The website Slashdot. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), article 4

How Ebay is ruining consumers desire

Everyday life to the average individual is characterised by a routine. This generates boredom, so in an attempt to escape from this, consumers enjoy the pleasures of day-dreaming and longing for something different to fuel excitement. Have you ever gazed into a shop window? Flicked through magazine advertisements for your favourite product, or even found something that you were looking for in a free catalogue? This is the consumer desire process and it has become a social norm in today’s world. It is described as the needs and wants of the consumer. Campbell (1987) describes the process as a “powerful cyclic emotion which delivers longing, pleasure, discomfort and disappointment”. This suggests that it is a cycle in which the consumer firstly wants an object, obtains the object, then starts to feel disappointed with the object / gets bored finally putting the object into the ‘displacement’ stage which later forgotten about. According to Belk et al (2003) the desire cycle can be accelerated by the “desire to desire, the hope for hope and the fear of being without desire and is further animated by the tension between morality and seduction”.

An example of how consumer desire has been accelerated is by looking at the online world. This is where you can find yourself looking for just about anything and being able to purchase it at great ease. This has been labelled ‘Digital virtual consumption’.  One of the most significant sources for this particular activity is the online auction website, EBay.

Knott D (2010) claims that desire is accelerated through 3 practices:

1. Quick achievement of receiving the desired item
2. Removal of moral consequences to purchases
3. Temporary ownership of digital virtual representations of desired goods

This suggests that an object that possibly could have been too expensive for the consumer in the past or maybe extremely rare to find in a regular shopping centre can now quickly and easily be purchased by the consumer. This leaves them ease of purchase for just about anything which inevitably leaves the consumer wanting more in order to keep their desire fuelled.

This website does a lot more than just fuel desire; Knott D (2010) describes the site as a “composite of consumer practices, including browsing, monitoring, temporary ownership of goods, actual material ownership through purchases”. I have an EBay account and through my experience I have been drawn in to certain purchases which have been monitored for days on end, only increasing my desire for the certain object only to realise a few weeks later that I have become used to it and it no longer excites me, and consecutively beginning the cycle again. EBay effectively does this by “shortening the distance between desire and actualisation through digital virtual and material consumption” Knott D (2010). This suggests that daydreaming/desire of having a product to the actualisation of having it can present problems for advertisers. Because of the speed of the cycle Campbell (1987) argues that EBay is “robbing consumers of the pleasures associated with wanting”. Consumers can no longer relate to a product that is truly special to them due to the ease of receiving it through the online world. Desire is now minimised with the consumer constantly thinking about the next object that they desire without consideration due to the disappointment after them receiving it once their desire if fulfilled.  Advertisers now have to be quicker with their messages in order to grab their attention before they simply move on.

However as an advertiser I feel that this can be a process that can be exploited. Because desire is now accelerated by the online world, advertisers can now use their messages to further fuel their desire informing and guiding them towards purchases which aim to utilise the cycle of desire.

What the future holds for UK product placement

Product placement is relatively new to the UK with the first ever example appearing on ITV’s ‘This Morning’ show only last week. The product was a Nestle coffee machine and was displayed for the price of £100,000 for a 3 month deal, which I imagine this will rise significantly in the future. Cowley and Barron (2008) state that product placement is a “combination of advertising and publicity designed to influence the audience by unobtrusively inserting branded products in entertainment programmes so that the viewer is unlikely to be aware of the persuasive intent”.  The reason why it has taken this long to for the UK to grasp product placement is the fact that Ofcom’s regulations didn’t not permit brands to do so. So I ask myself why now? We are living in a digital age where television advertising revenues are taking second place in effectiveness and value for money compared to the internet. Is this the television networks idea for gaining revenue? Allowing the audience to get distracted from there favourite TV shows due to unnecessary branding or will product placement in fact be an advantage in promoting brand awareness and products to the audience?

 Online product placement is currently on the rise with 2010 being the year that online product placements expanded by 15% to reach about $46 million. This suggests that online placement is out performing television focusing on social networks, YouTube videos and other virtual environments. Is television too late to bring this method into practice? Surly the statistics suggest that people are becoming more glued to their laptops than there television screens where they can interact with brands more than ever before compared to the tacky way in which television are unnecessarily sticking in branded products.

When it comes to television, the UK audience have been exposed to product placement through American sitcoms which suggest that there has not been any trouble with the issue in the past. Yet the UK is now introducing a new ‘P’ symbol aimed to warn the viewers that there are in fact branded products inserted onto the set.

Take a look at the 2011 awareness advert:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ctqz_zqV68

This to me will be where problems will arise. Ofcom will suggest that is in fact a more ethical way by warning the audience yet I argue that this will interrupt the viewing experience. Before the products were conveniently placed in the background, yet now the audience is told that they will be appearing, they will be constantly looking out for them rather than concentrating, and enjoying the program. An industry expert suggested that the rules will be a lot tighter than that of the US, with his example being “It won’t be like American Idol; Cheryl Cole won’t be sitting on The X Factor sipping Coca Cola.”  He goes on to talk about the consumers views on the issue claiming that “There is obviously a bit of give and take, they have to make sure the product is right for the show. Audiences are entitled to push back if they don’t like it.” And then went on to suggest that audiences have welcomed product placement.

A contradicting pole I found on the ITV website suggests that 61.7% of people questioned agree that it will be a distraction. Could this mean that consumers are likely to get annoyed, which will result in negatively affecting the brands image? The Trumen Show is a comedy film that points out the extreme ways in which product placement could occur in which if this is anything to go buy then I completely agree:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhIIPbO_6xg

 I feel that if product placement is to be successful in the UK there needs to be an element of balance. The product will have to fit in perfectly with the surroundings of the show/character in order for the certain brand to reap the benefits.  There is no doubt in my mind that the future of product placement is likely to be determined by the consumer.

 References

 -. (2011). Nescafe coffee machine on This Morning is first product placement on TV. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8350382/Nescafe-coffee-machine-on-This-Morning-is-first-product-placement-on-TV.html. Last accessed 6th March 2011.

 Clark, N. (2010). Broadcasters lick lips as product placement lands. Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/broadcasters-lick-lips-as-product-placement-lands-2165656.html. Last accessed 6th March 2011

 Cowley, E., Barron C. (2008). When product placement goes wrong: the effects of program liking and placement prominence. Journal of Advertising 37, p. 89-98

 Knight, K. (2010). Forecast: Online product placement to outpace television. Available: http://www.bizreport.com/2010/07/forecast-online-product-placement-to-outpace-television.html#. Last accessed 6^th March 2011

.

Innovative and Seamless branding

If you want to have a successful brand in today’s world then you will always have to be one step ahead of your competition in every type of aspect imaginable. Verganti, R (2009) states two attributes that your brand will have to contain in order to be successful and popular in the eyes of the consumer. Firstly, the brand will have to have radical innovation which to me is a pretty obvious attribute, yet the second aspect is slightly less apparent.  He claims that ‘People don’t buy products but meanings. Firms should therefore look beyond features, functions and performance and understand the real meaning s users give to things’.

For this claim Verganti uses the Nintendo Wii as an example of how a brand can override its competition through break through innovation along with a collaboration of meanings in which the user can give to the product.  Now I can remember when the Nintendo Wii first came out, it was something so new and unheard of that everyone simply had to have ago. It was Christmas a few years back and both my brother and I where given the Nintendo Wii as a combined present. Christmas of course if that time of the year where all the family come together, which in reality for myself and my brother means spending endless hours in front of the TV playing playstation in which the older family members would have simply no part in. I guess this was mainly due to lack of knowledge of how to play the game in the first place. Yet this particular year was a little different, everyone was truly intrigued into what could actually be achieved on this new gaming device. Everyone wanted to have a go and ended up bringing the family closer together that year as a result. The Wii outshined its competitors of the new Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 that year even when being priced considerably lower and changed the way gaming was perceived giving a more meaningful atmosphere. It ‘stimulated active physical entertainment, in the real world, through socialization. The intuitiveness of its controllers made it easy for everyone to play. Wii transformed consoles from an immersion in a virtual world approachable only by niche experts into an active workout for everyone’ (Verganti, R 2009). The argument here is that no one would have thought that gaming could have evolved from the button bashing on controllers, yet through the innovation of meanings it evolved into a virtual world. An idea that is so loved by the consumer that there will be no looking back in the near future.

Brands need to be remembered through a positive word-of-mouth from the consumer, which in this ‘Digital World’ that we are currently living in largely contributes to. Brands need to tackle all areas in order to be successful, whether is through its website, apps, Facebook or Twitter updates etc. The example of the Wii suggests that price and value is no longer becoming an issue compared to building a strong relationship between brand and consumer. This is where the term ‘Seamless Brands’ comes into play. When a brand has build up huge territory they want to protect it and tailor it towards the consumers needs and wants, making them feel special and looked after. It is all to do with creating a positive experience that will reflect your brand. Let me put this into reality with the example of something as little as the error 404 web message when a webpage that you are trying to access cannot be displayed. To many this should equal little significance to a brand but in fact is the complete opposite. Brands are currently being so loyal to customers that the branded consistency is a huge factor with attention to detail. Take this Coca-Cola 404 error message for example

Something as little as a ‘sorry’ from the brand itself and links back to the homepage and other content suggests that they are looking after the consumer  a lot more than the competing brand which may give the typical ‘page cannot be displayed’ dead-end as well as further advertising the brand. When branding in this digital world, attention to detail is crucial for keeping consumer interest and keeping a positive brand value ahead of its competitors.

Times Are Changing!

To me having a mobile phone is essential part of everyday life. As a student there have been various nights out where I have come to wake up hangover and phoneless, spending the remainder of the week feeling isolated from the outside world. This is because with a mobile phone you are able to utilise its various functions and take them for granted. For me having a mobile phone enables me to keep in contact with friends , gather various information that I need off hand, entertain myself on tedious car trips back and forth, as well as possessing a certain identity shown by the type of phone in which I choose to be associated with.

“Today, there are more than 3 billion mobile phone subscribers throughout the world with the figure expecting to double by the end of 2011” (Stump et al, 2008)This really brings into context the rate of mobile phone adoption is growing  and it is only inevitable that technology aims to increase at the same skyrocketing rate. today in the United Kingdon their are more mobile phones than people” (McStay 2010). Mobile phones and other information technologies have been characterised as part of the ‘digital divide’ (Stump et all, 2008). This refers to the gap between both the rich and poor with effective access to information and digital technology and those who have limited or no access at all. My argument here is that with this extreme growth in mobile phone consumption levels, even people in the poorest parts of the world will have access to their own mobile phone. This to me is crazy to think that people, who have never had a landline phone, driven a car or even ridden a bike, can now have access to mobile phone communication.

Now, I can remember my first mobile phone being the classic Nokia 3310. These embraced the analogue technology and were very limited in terms of what you could do with them, compared to now. These phones were labelled as 1G technology which describes them as fitting into the first generation technology category. These days innovation in technology has enabled us to go as far as fifth generation technology (5G) and I the eyes of advertisers, there has not been a better time for brand advertising campaigns to launch through mobile media. I will now go on to show you how mobile phones are one of the hottest tools for brand promotion at present.

 In terms of advertising, mobile media provides a more personalised service to the consumer when delivering brand information and enables them see the intended message on-the-go. This started off with the typical SMS campaigns which are a cost effective method of reaching out to the consumer through a single text.theses days, iPhones and Apples app store have driven the expansion of this market with 1 billion applications served, 35,000 applications avaliable and more than 30 million devices in the market. (McStay 2010) This is an example of the everexpanding world in terms of technology with new and innovative ways to get into the mind of the consumer. there next examples will really make you feel as though you are living in the future…

 Take the recent example of QR codes. These are a two-dimensional bar code in which any consumer with a phone equipped with a camera and the right application reader can scan the code and decode the relevant information at high speed. In terms of media marketing these can be placed anywhere. From favourite magazine to the billboard that you notice while you wait at a bus stop. Advertisers now have more control over measuring response than ever before. In the past it was almost impossible to find out if anyone is actually acknowledging your advert, but with these codes monitor how many people scan that certain URL. This puts advertising effectiveness under a whole new light.

So what is the future of mobile advertising? Mobile codes are already taking off dramatically and it seems these days you can do virtually anything though your mobile phone. Mc Stay (2010) argues that Japan represents the future for mobile phone technology and peoples relations with their phones. Let’s consider mobile phone payments for example. This is already taking place in McDonalds in Japan where you can choose to pay through you mobile phone by scanning it at the counter. Could the mobile phone be the only thing that you need to have on you in the future? If the consumer can already make a payment, why could it not carry you identification? Or even be your car keys at just a scan away? I argue that the mobile phone is slowly replacing everything that you have ever carried on you. Mobile phones are currently considered the extension of an individual and with that type of obsession from the consumer it is inevitable that mobile media will carry on providing a huge impact on consumers. It is only a matter of time before we will feel as though we are living in a futuristic world at just a press of a button from your mobile phone.

Interactivity takes control…But who is in control!?

Interactivity is a term that covers so many areas of communication that it is tricky to define. Because of this I have turned to the Oxford English Dictionary for a clear definition. It states that interactivity when considering in terms of new media is “allowing a two way flow of information between it (a computer of other electronic device) and the user, responding to the users imprint”. From this we can understand that any type of computer/computer program or website is a form of interactivity. As long as the user has total control towards the flow of information.

Dance’s Helical Model of Communication was one of the first models that attempted to express the interactive nature of communication. (Rafaeli, S) The model is drawn as a downward spiral to represent that communication is continues, unrepeatable, additive and accumulative. Rafaeli disagrees that interactivity as communication can be summed up a simply as spiral shape suggesting that interactivity is “something beyond an illustrated metaphor”. The term interactivity is greatly unclear in terms of new media, but what is very clear is that interactivity plays a vital role in the everyday life of the consumer in which I argue and been seen as both positive as well as negative.

 Take the recent Obama campaign for an example of political interactive success. $8million was spent on digital advertising through various search engines and news sites, which ultimately changed politics and mirrored the campaign by J.F Kennedy’s medium of television in 1961. Arianna Huffington, editor The Huffington Post explains that “if it weren’t for the internet, Barrack Obama would not be president, if it weren’t for the internet Barrack Obama would not be a nominee”. By using web 2.0 interactive tools such as iphone apps, YouTube and even text message campaigns Obama would be able to organise his supporters and make them engage with Obama as a real person and not just the first black person to be president for American publicity. This is an example by which the consumers themselves can take control through their own social media as a type of interactive army all set on a goal. We now live in the age of digital communications and anyone who is benefited with this technology has the power to change reality itself, even as high as political. But who is in fact controlling who? Obama? Or is it power to the people?

A recent example of a current campaign that plays on the interactivity of consumers is the Smirnoff ‘Nightlife Exchange’ competition which is an example of interactivity through a brand. This is a campaign which aims to Exchange nightlife experience of 14 different countries cultures. The UK is part of this process and is linked to a two way communication with Facebook in which Facebook users get to vote for the night to take place in their local city. This enables a powerful advertising tool of word-of-mouth which will take place over 14 different countries for this fantastic nightlife experience which will inevitably create a positive brand image towards Smirnoff. Below is the televised advertisement:

Lastly I would like to take the BBC’s Doctor Who, which became a failing television show with ever lowering ratings and explain that through pioneering interactivity of media channels, the BBC created a trans-media world in which participatory audiences had the “opportunity to engage in a rich and extended multimedia experience”. (Perryman N, 2008) the BBC’s aim was to create a buzz in the eyes of the public by having the program across different media channels which will in turn invite interactive communication. The BBC set up websites which list certain media such as mini episodes and blogging experiences of the show. Brooker (2003) states that this is an example of ‘television over-flow’. He defines this as; “The tendency for media producers to construct a lifestyle experience around a core text, using the internet to extend audience engagement and encourage a two-way communication”.

My argument is what is digital interactivity’s current impact on society? Do the public feel as though they are in total control in terms of how they what to control their media outcomes? Or in fact has producers simply tweaked the position in which they what the audience to follow, enabling the audience to become warped and controlled? It is clear that interactivity is becoming very popular amongst everyday life of the consumer. But what is not clear is whether the idea has been simply created to increase consumer enjoyment and positive values, or is it something a lot more complicated that that…

Digital Advertising. . . Boom or Bust!?

I would like to start my first blogging experience with an interesting quote to set the scene of my talked about topic of the week:

“The first book printed for the mass market was the bible” (McStay A, 2009).

Taken from a sample in 2007 the total amount of UK users having access to the internet will reach way over 30million which accounts for over 60% of the UK population. This to me is crazy! When considering that the web was only created in the early 1990’s! Another shocking fact I learned from my lecture is that television took 13 years to gain 50million viewers… The social networking site Facebook double this in under a year, with over 500million active users today! This is the modern mass market and where digital advertising in the eyes of successful companies such as Amazon, EBay and obviously Facebook has comfortably found their place.

“Online industry has grown exponentially and is now the fastest growing advertising medium, growing faster than any other marketing/advertising channel. It has proved both a cost effective medium and attractive due to potential returns on investments” (McStay, 2009)

Digital advertising is all about communicating towards the modern mass market. According to McStay it has been a media option for advertisers since 1994 and earned its place in the media mix as a practical media option. “When budgets are tight measurable and accountable digital advertising proves and attractive option” (McStay 2009). Does this quote suggest that the online advertising is to be considered being placed into the “New Media” category? And is “Old Media” such as books, newspaper and even television to be ignored as an effective advertising medium? Surly the early dot-bomb days in the 90’s economic downturn suggests that the internet is not perfect and not all companies will make huge returns on their media investments? What about spam emails, identity fraud, viruses and acts of terrorism? (Cheung, 2009) surly these are enough of a reason to rethink the overall effectiveness of digital advertising and raises the question whether this ever growing online community can in fact begin to be uncontrollable? This is due to what is commonly known a web 2.0 which introduced social media channels such as YouTube, Twitter, Wikipedia and the most popular, Facebook. These are the voices of consumers who through people-to-people communication build online spaces which shapes themselves to who they are. This can be abused by advertisers who what to find their target audience and have worked in the past for successful brad such as Pepsi, jeep and Dove. Yet it can also backfire for brands when users talk negatively about a certain product, damaging the brand.

My argument is that in this contemporary world, media created before the digital era is still to be effective advertising tools amongst consumers. 60% of the UK population are able to sit comfortably at a deck mindlessly clicking though internet pages of their chosen interest could be effectively targeted, but what are rest of the 40% doing? And how in the minds of advertisers are they being targeted? From my experience of surfing the net, when bombarded with pop ups begging you to click on the link, I am usually focussed more on getting rid of the intruding window without even realising what is being advertised. McStay argues that this distinction does not exist and that the so called “new media” is in fact a range of different media methods interacting with each other in different ways. Digital advertising “encompasses all of the media before it and stirs the pot to the boiling point with a large does of interactivity” (Sherman, 2008) claiming that types of media join on to each other to effectively target the consumer.

To conclude through the eyes of an advertiser, I state that digital communications has in fact successfully boomed, and established itself as a requirement for companies who want successful advertising and should be used alongside other advertising mediums. Due to social media devices such as web 2.0 advertisers can never get too comfortable and underestimate the mind of the consumer. Issues have been raised evaluating sustainability of the broadband infrastructure which can put digital communications in a negative light. Never forget that consumers have the most powerful adverting tool of them all… Word of mouth!

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!