Re: [projectvrm] Peak ads, from the advertiser POV

[M a r y H o d d e r < >]

IMHO it comes down to signaling. If the medium
provides for an exchange of information (attention
from buyer traded for signal from seller) it stays
useful.  As soon as either side figures out the other
is trying to get something for nothing, the medium
declines from its "peak".

I disagree.. it's signaling but not as you describe it here.  The success of magazine ads is about perceived value.

When we see high quality goods advertised in high quality ads that signal quality, design

and aspiration,  fashion and something new and potentially artful, we like it, even if we are never going to buy the exact thing.

The signal has value to even non-buyers, because it's considered a sort of status to "know" about

what is perceived as good by most of the culture.  

So.. yes I stared for 10 seconds at the two $2,000 shirts in the Gucci ad on the back of a magazine today at the airport, and no 

I'm never going to buy them, though over the years I've bought belts, a dozen pair of shoes, necklaces, 

and a few other things from Gucci. But I like knowing their design direction compared to others

this season. It's about knowledge, about taste and style, even if i always wear jeans and much less expensive

shirts.. 

My point is, banner ads don't give me any of that and both sides are trying to get something for very little. 

if not absolutely nothing. And it's not just fashion such as cars or shirts or changing designs

that we look at. I also look at the ad for travel destinations and the really nice tools in the tool porn magazines

from Japan and the beautifully designed ladder porn or the food porn.. mostly these other categories don't change

that much in the short term.

As someone once said about Martha Stewart (in re: Kmart), "mass likes class" even if they can't afford most of the goods that are about demonstrating it.

We like quality.. and magazine ads often (unless its Time or Newsweek) show us that..

and that's not about anyone not getting stuff out of those ads. We aren't getting nothing out of it and trying to still get something for it..

and they aren't trying to sell all of us the goods.. if they did, the goods would cease to be valuable.

When Gucci spread too thin about 15y ago and sold too much, they devalued the brand. They had to bring in Tom Ford to fix things

and rein in 

Magazine ads (in the likes of Vanity Fair, Vogue, Fine Woodworking, AOPA -- the airplane mag, Elle Decor, Saveur -- food, etc.. are about

the exchange of *perceived value* for information about the "latest and/or greatest" in a domain.

There is no attempt to get something for nothing.. in fact that sort of advertising will keep going for a long time because there is real,

perceived value on both sides.

On Mar 9, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Don Marti wrote:

Doc cited this when it came out in 2013...
 THE THEORY OF PEAK ADVERTISING
 AND THE FUTURE OF THE WEB
 http://peakads.org/images/Peak_Ads.pdf

Now here are many of the same points, from a
marketer's point of view:
 The Law of Shitty Clickthroughs
 http://andrewchen.co/the-law-of-shitty-clickthroughs/

 "First it works and then it doesn't."

Why do some ad media get depleted while others don't?

Why are banner ads "slash and burn" while magazine ads
are "permaculture"?

IMHO it comes down to signaling. If the medium
provides for an exchange of information (attention
from buyer traded for signal from seller) it stays
useful.  As soon as either side figures out the other
is trying to get something for nothing, the medium
declines from its "peak".

--
Don Marti                    
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/