Paul,

Thanks for making Daily Fix readers aware of another technology-driven marketing trend. I also appreciate the kind mention of one of my recent posts.

Marketers and their companies really need to ask themselves some soul-searching questions these days. Do they really want to set up focus groups where the subjects' every brain wave and heart palpitation is monitored? Do they really want to use hypnosis to find out what focus group subjects are really thinking vs what they're saying? And now, with your post, do they really want to get into consumers' minds with modulated ultrasound? All of these techniques can be used incorrectly, or abused... whether people are afforded the opportunity to opt-in or not.

Many of us have real reservations about these new "tools". With our privacy being invaded day in and day out, there is bound to be more push-back from the general population. People are bound to ask: "Do we want our personal thoughts to be intruded upon by marketing messages"? I'll bet the answer will be a resounding "No".

Ted, thank you for commenting. Marketers, customers, and societies will have to decide where the boundaries of privacy should be. Neuro-marketing--brain scans with functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI is another technology driven trend that is niche today but may become mainstream soon.

"• Do we have a right to privacy—in our own skulls? "

Absofrickenlutely. Just reading the article disturbed us on this end. To think that could be the future of advertising is a scary thought.

Marketers at Brick, thank you for reading and commenting. It will be up to marketers like you to voice your opinions and shape the debate.

I think if you polled customers about privacy, a large percentage of people would say they have a vested interest. However, oftentimes our actions on the internet often point to the opposite stance.

Interesting post, Paul. In reading this over, it struck me that this whole invasion of privacy issue might afford companies with an excellent opportunity. As practices like these become part of marketers' vernacular, it might be a wise idea for companies to come out and take a stand on this. A statement like this would likely be met with appreciation from consumers: "We value our customers' privacy too much to ever invade their personal space with an advertising message. Ever."

What do you think, Paul?

Claire, thank you for joining the conversation!

One of the best ways for a company to be successful is to do their very best to engender and then keep customer trust. Few things are worse than broken trust and not establishing, maintaining or enforcing privacy policies is a sure fire way to break that bond of trust.

I believe companies are resorting to these types of techniques because they either don't care about personal privacy, don't think customers care, or are ignorant of the consequences of breaking that trust. So to your point, there might be a play for companies that speak loudly as to clear lines of demarcation of what they will/won't do in regards to privacy.

I think we already know that marketers will go as far as the courts of the United States allow them to go.

We have e-mail SPAM. We have text SPAM. We have phone calls at home, at work, etc. TV ads, Internet ads, etc. You name it, we have it.

They'll beam ads at us with modulated ultrasound until someone proves it causes brain tumors and someone gets their pants sued off.

Just my 2¢ on the subject.

Stanley F. Bronstein
MrAchievement
Attorney, CPA, Author & Speaker
Official Guide to Achievement on SelfGrowth.com

If this becomes common practice, congress would outlaw it post haste.

Either that or consumers would vote no with their cash. Who wants their thoughts disrupted?

We definitely have a right to privacy in our own skulls. The mere thought of hearing random voices inside of my head creeps me out. I wonder how the courts would interpret this if it ever came to a lawsuit?

As an addendum to my previous comment, I wonder if there are any lawyers who have read this post and could provide some insight into the possible legal ramifications of this activity.

Dear Paul,

We have right to have privacy in our skulls. The mere thought of hearing random voices inside of my head creeps me out. I wonder how the courts would interpret this if it ever came to a lawsuit?

Perhaps this will lead to an abrupt increase in the number of tin-foil hat wearers? Could beam refraction be the next fashion opportunity? Sorry - that thought just popped into my head...

Paul,

Agreed. Companies do have an opportunity here to express respect for the customer, and to earn their trust, as a result. Clear statements that are adhered to, transparency and honesty will speak well for companies that refuse to resort to marketing tactics like the one you've discussed in your post.

Creepy beyond measure. I consider it a personal attack.

Neil, Stanley, and Rob thank you for commenting. One of the defining factors will be opt-in vs. opt-out. Opt in techniques, like hyponosis or brain scans are usually quid pro quo, or as a consumer I'm exchanging value for information--albeit the tactics are a bit invasive.

A larger challenge, where there could be legal concerns (read:privacy) is when the consumer is subjected to more invasive and disruptive forms of marketing directed towards our brains through available and coming technologies.

For most marketing techniques, we can throw the direct marketing away, turn off the TV or radio, or not read a billboard. However, what happens when marketing is beamed at us?

Steve, are you sure that particular thought wasn't beamed into your head? :)

Sharon, thanks for contributing to the discussion. So far, modulated ultrasound isn't a widely adopted technology. But let's not pick on this particular technology--I'm more concerned about how technologies (like these) are being used. Paul Wolpe's comments about the 21st century and "civil rights of the mind" seem to be spot on.

@ Lori, regarding your "personal attack" comment. Marketers will really need to think long and hard about this, or any other futuristic disruptive technology and whether it should be used in the marketplace. It's really not the technlogy per se that is at fault, it's the "application" of said technology. Ethics and morality have been and will continue to be considerations for all marketers.

What sometimes seems like a good idea at first might end up costing us brand equity in the end.

the battle is over. Privacy lost.

We can no longer walk into a store, buy gas, stand in an elevator, or wait for a train without consuming advertising. It used to be that these kinds of activities were times when one could be lost in his own thoughts, but no more. It's exhausting; I step out of my car at the gas station and I hear incredibly loud reminders to go into the minimart and buy coffee or beef jerky. I walk up a grocery store aisle the muzak of old has been replaced by a cacophony of announcements and sound effects that's very hard to tune out.

Running errands at lunch used to be a break from the stimulation of a workday; these days, I find it completely exhausting. It's fine to say "you can tune it out," but really, that's not that easy; it's designed to be hard to ignore.

Beaming a message into your head is just a matter of making what's already the case - no consumer can be left alone for a moment - more direct.

It's the natural evolution of what marketers have already wrought.

I think this is an important issue, but I think marketers have zero credibility to talk about it. I'm sorry if that sounds cynical - and I am a marketer myself! - but our profession has shown very little respect for consumers over the years, and very little respect for privacy or the cultures in which we operate, so it's a little late now.

John, thank you for adding your thoughts to the discussion! We live in an age of clutter, competition and too few customers for too many products. I keep thinking mass marketing is dead/dying, but as you mentioned it rears its ugly head wherever we go.

Now to your point about marketers having zero credibility - that may be true in many cases. But it's up to our profession to debate, decide and then set ethical standards, or we'll have them set for us by government entities.

One of the first steps to self-policing is to have these types of discussions. Thank you for adding your valuable input.

Yes, I agree - we do need to be talking about this, and I think it's great that you posted on it.

I think, though, that if we wanted to talk to the public about it, marketers alone are not credible. Now, if a professional marketing association teamed up with someone else - say, a privacy advocacy group - and made some kind of public statement about what acceptable practices were, that would be powerful.

John, we live in a free society so why don't people choose not to buy products where the marketing was offensive?

My Dad tells the story of a coffee called Kava that he drank in the Seventies or something. He said there was some obnoxious ad with "Kava, Kava" being said in an annoying voice. He immediately switched coffee brands...

John, "the battle is lost" is flat out wrong. Battles such as this are never over. Ever.

Policy makers and consumers can draw the line. I'd prefer it be consumers that take the vote with wallet staying firmly in purse or pocket.

John and Neil, I see privacy policies adopted by the Direct Marketers Association -a good start, however this only covers direct marketing.

Ultimately, there will be a tipping point, that when crossed, will create a huge backlash for companies adopting these tactics. When/where is this tipping point? Have we reached it? Meanwhile, I suspect marketers will keep attempting to push the envelope.

Neil: if I can figure out how to get by without buying groceries, going to gas stations, waiting for trains, etc., I'll let you know!

I'm not talking about a specific ad here, I'm talking about the invasion of advertising into most every public space and free moment of our lives, and it's not as simple as skipping a product because you hate their ads.

While people have accepted a certain amount of this as just how life is, I do think there's resentment that advertising is inescapable - even turning up in our kids' classrooms. An industry that doesn't keep itself in check is begging for a backlash, though I'm not sure what form that might take.

This technology can be used responsibily.

I invision people standing outside a theater in front of a screen the size of a movie poster and having the trailer displayed in front of them as the audio is sent to them upon request.

Same thing with music, instead of waiting for headphones at the CD store, just walk into a little corner of the store where you can listen to that particular album.

As for unwanted messages, I think you'll find those are pervasive across all media and wherever there is an unwanted message there is a person looking to get around it: e.g. changing channels, commercial skipping, banner ad blocking, popup blocking, etc.

All of us here are in the business of convincing people who otherwise think they don't want our product that they do. If a Civic does the same job (get you from A to B) as your car, why don't you drive a Civic?

Michael, you make some compelling points. Of course, one of your examples is "opt-in" where a customer opts--or chooses-- to hear a song at a store.

An issue of concern is for customers who are not opting to hear the marketing message beamed at them, especially one delivered with modulated ultrasound. This is a much different --and invasive--technology than an audio transmission from a loudspeaker playing outside a movie theatre for example. A marketing message riding on an ultrasound beam appears to be difficult to ignore.

Paul,
Yes, I agree that this can be invasive and troublesome. I was trying to point out to people that like all other things, there is a good side to this technology.

Then I added that I think people will start trying to disrupt or block the signal. I would imagine the first time the upper crust of a company gets thumped in the head with an annoying ad, they'll immediately cease using this method.

It's likely the government (Congress and the FCC) would have something to say about this misuse as well.

It occurred to me as I read these comments that is an example of the folly of responding to an increase in interruption marketing by interrupting people more. I mentioned the bombardment of audio ads and videos in the supermarket; funny thing is, I cannot tell you what most of them were. I know one of them sounds like my cell phone ringing, and really bugs me. I know that there was something with dancing peppers on the video screen. Mostly, I find that my reaction to the bombardment is to just shut everything off (and resent that as I stroll around picking up items I need, I can't be lost in my own thoughts about the next errand I need to run, a conversation I had earlier in the day, or project I'm working on. I leave the store tired and annoyed and with absolutely no idea what they were trying to get me to buy.

As marketers we often do more of what we know when it's being crowded out by others doing the same things. The net result, I think, is that all of it becomes less effective. That people are interested in technologies that make it harder to ignore is, I think, telling; hey, let's strap the consumer to a gurney and make them watch the ads!

Maybe it's a sign that the whole model is failing?

The opt-in uses are, of course, a whole other story. I think people would like not having to put on headphones worn by 100 strangers in order to preview a song! (Of course, this presumes that people are going to stores to buy CDs in ten years..)

John and Michael, thank you for adding your valuable input. You both bring up some strong points about positive applications of this technology. As with anything, there's a limit and balance between just right and mis-use.

John, as to your comment about the "whole model failing"--is it that we don't know our customers as well as we think we do or should? Is that driving us to use more aggressive and invasive tactics?

I'm not sure. I think at least part of the issue is that overall "noise level" of marketing has increased, and the response of many advertisers has been to try to out-shout everybody else. I think another part of it a business trend to monetize every opportunity to get a consumer's attention. It's understandable - if I'm a supermarket chain, wouldn't I like to sell time to people who want to play ads in my stores, instead of paying for music to be piped in? But of course that feeds into the first issue. Ultimately, though, i don't think this is a sustainable advertising model (society-wide) because the clutter simply increases beyond the ability of people to sort it out.

Looking at this as a citizen, rather than a marketer, I'm distressed about the degradation of our public spaces that results.

Some of the invasive advertising is actually pretty well targeted, though; if I'm in a grocery store, I'm buying food, and advertising food makes sense, right? And it probably worked really well for the first ten advertisers, before people started ignoring it.

I'm not sure what the big answer is here.

"I'm not talking about a specific ad here, I'm talking about the invasion of advertising into most every public space and free moment of our lives, and it's not as simple as skipping a product because you hate their ads."

John, I misunderstood your original argument but your point I quote above is well taken. You are absolutely right.

For example, I do not go to movie theaters any more because the sheer volume of ads and previews has become odious. I'd rather not be bombarded.

Scary! And scary to think how far it will go before any action outlawing it will be taken . . . IF any action will be taken . . . and I DO believe in Freedom of Speech

Deb C, thank you for commenting. Cam Beck wrote a good post on how advertising needs to be 1) Invited 2) Welcome 3)Expected. Unfortunately modulated ultrasound follows none of these criteria.

Deb,

Freedoms are balanced against other rights and freedoms.

Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."