Stop Posting Billboards on the Way to the Fair

As a consumer, the ads don't bother me. Most of the time my eyes go to the content I want to see and ignore the peripheral stuff.

As someone operating a booth, I don't mind the ads that appear in the neighborhood.

As a potential advertiser I have no confidence that such billboards would do any good.

That makes two of us.  I'm suggesting that the ads-for-eyeballs model currently in use is not necessarily producing results, or such results that are sustainable over time (the bugaboo of translating time spent/wasted into actual sales is going to catch up with even the most creative campaigns, iMHO).

So I'm not sure I'd advise a client to spend money on it now, unless there were some equation in-house that correlated impressions with ultimate sales.  If no such math exists, I bet it's doable, even if it would never be exact.

The 'alternative model' that I'm contemplating would involve marketers in offering/supporting the actual behaviors that constitue the social media platforms themselves.  I don't have the right ideas yet, but why couldn't a brand name choose to support some new, useful module?  Maybe a brand name could provide identity-confirming tools, or some merge function to make our address books more efficient?

My idea is that the benefit to those brands wouldn't arise from putting their logos or slogans on said tools (or running entertaining ads next to them), but rather from the behavioral benefits they provide to users.  So don't advertise at the fair; help run it?

I'm still not clear what exactly it is you're proposing. If I'm ad agency or the actual client, on what basis should I buy advertising on Facebook or other social media? If I don't use associated keywords or some type of affinity-based approach, on what basis do my ads get served up then? It's hard for me to rebel against this current system if I don't know what alternative model(s) I'm running toward.

Terry, we're in violent agreement...my thinking is that 1) we go to social sites because we get 'value' from our involvement (and give it, too, often), but that this benefit isn't measured or even considered by the folks hoping to monetize those services, and 2) by running the corollary of billboards at the fair, they're missing a bigger opportunity.

You/we transact via these services, and I think those behaviors are the way they're going to live or die over time.  The ad model is tangential to it, if not an outright impediment.

PS, I'm the miller.  LOL...

The billboard/fair metaphor in play here doesn't work for me -- I don't go to Facebook, MySpace, Twitter or any other social site to transact business or spend money. Maybe if they began to charge $1 (a real dollar, not that virtual coinage) for the "Which Canterbury Pilgrim Are You Quiz?", or required micro-payments to become a Fan of Defenestration, this argument might hold up.

But really, how are these so-called billboards any different from banner ads or pop-ups that appears on "destination sites" like Yahoo, Goole, or MSN? If the point is that this medium offers too little bang for the buck (too little ROI), let's skip the medieval frolicking and say it.

Leland, I really like your 'voluntary' pricing approach.  The ad model is based on exploitation of passive viewers, just like in the old days of mass media.  The mechanics are more active and convoluted, but the outcome is the same: distraction.

I wonder what will replace it, as the the value of the networks emerges from the activities of participants, not in exploiting their presence.

David, thanks for your comment, and you dimensionalized my point far beyond (and better) than I'd stated it. 

The fundamental question is really two-fold, right?  First, would people pay for the easy entertainment they now get via Facebook/et al and, second, what could social networks provide that would warrant payment if entertainment didn't suffice?

Ultimately, someone pays, as you pointed out, and right now the presumption is that those ad exposures are worth it.  I don't think they are, or will be, over time.  But I'm fascinated by what could take their place...

The 'fair' model would be interesting to explore in more detail, which I think I'll try to do via my posts.  Will place matter?  Relevance/utility of content?  Are 'transactions' already occuring between individuals who trade chatter or entertainment content, only it's not monetized in legal tender? 

Lots to discuss!

I love the example!  Sometimes we get caught up and think that we are dealing with new challenges.  As you explain, fee versus free has been a challenge through the ages.

When you visit Facebook for some entertainment or look upon the "peasant to dip his face in the mud" the bottom line is somebody has to pay.

At the fair the options were

• The visitors paid a fee to the mud covered peasant
• A shopkeeper paid the peasant to jump in the mud in front of his booth to attract a crowd or maybe the peasant was paid to talk, while jumping in the mud about the wonderful food available from and the shopkeeper
  
• The visitors paid a fee to attend the fair and the fair paid the peasant

From the fairs of days gone by to the online electronic fairs - the issue is the same, somebody has the pay the piper!

Right now the consumers are really enjoying getting Twitter and Facebook for free!  However, some like you are getting tired of paying via advertisements (eyeballs).  The challenge for Twitter and Facebook is what happens if they take away the ads and charge for content - how many folks hated the ads that much?

This is an excellent concept, particularly if the 'advertiser' is providing a service at the 'fair' that is within their realm of expertise. Examples that come to my mind are Apple iTunes providing user-appropriate background music for chat rooms and IMs (maybe taking into account the ages and subject matter being discussed), Toyota providing the virtual car in a vacation virtual reality, Citigroup handling the virtual money transactions on game sites, and the like.

Like booths at a fair, however, participation has to be voluntary... and the services provided by the booths have to be so good that people WANT to go to the booth.

Thanks for putting this idea out there!