Cell phone service providers are desperate to find new revenue streams, so it’s not surprising that Verizon is making the step to have banner ads appear on news, weather, sports and other websites that users visit via their Verizon mobile phones….
Of course, marketers are salivating at this possibility. Nobody really knows if this venue is going to work, but, according to the NY Times, the central theory seems to be that ads placed on mobile phones could create an intimate bond with consumers.
Say what?
While consumers may have an intimate relationship with their cell phones, since when is this going to transfer to an advertiser? Tell me one other context where consumers have an intimate relationship with anything, and then have this intimacy transferred to an intruder.
Affect transfer does occur in many other situations (use of personalities in advertising is one example), but these are expected situations that occur between consumers in typically non-intimate settings.
Anyway, I would expect that Verizon is going to tread lightly here. According to the NY Times, “Carriers have also been concerned about annoying cellphone users with obtrusive marketing messages.”
The potential for making more money, however, will be way too tempting, and eventually such ads are going to be commonplace.
I can’t imagine a scenario in which I’d be thrilled to have ads delivered to my cell phone…unless, of course, the phone was free.
And anyway — didn’t folks at Verizon get the memo…? TIME magazine said YOU (well, WE) are in control now.
Aren’t we?
The Wall Street Journal also recently commented on how consumers want to control the media they consume and how they consume it: “This low-key approach is a major reversal for an industry long keen on marketing messages delivered with a sledge hammer.”
This appears to be a step back.
I agree with Ann….the only way I see ads entering, is through a ‘NetZero’ business model. free phone service sponsored by advertising.
Even if I paid to get mobile TV on my phone, I wouldn’t want to see traditional advertising
All I have to say is
Yuck! Why would I want ads on my cell phone?
Skeptical am I. I have colleagues who run mobile-advertising co’s and are exhuberant over locale-targeted mobile ads (step 20 ft. from a Burger King and get a coupon on your phone for a cheap whopper). I just can’t imagine walking down Broadway here in NYC and getting BOMBARDED with 100 messages every 20 ft. Can you imagine?
Any advertising on a mobile phone…even a free one…just turns me off.
On another Verizon note, they’ve been billing themselves out — on their phone system’s message when you’re on hold — as a broadband and entertainment company. I asked the representative when they became an entertainment co. and she replied, “Good question, I don’t know.” Nothing against Verizon, because I like the company, but they seem, well, disoriented.
When it comes to intrusive advertising, let’s face it — we are a nation of sheep. We’ve grown up with ads on TV, we’ve accepted ads in the movie theater–even after paying $10 or more (in NYC anyway) for the privilege. Yes, I bet some people will accept ads as a way to get free cellphone service.
But how much will Verizon be able to make from this approach and for how long… that’s the question. If Verizon’s execs are taking the typical short-range maximize-profits-this-quarter approach, they’ll try it until the majority of the public says “no deal” or someone figures a way to bypass the ads and still get the free service.
Hi All,
Thanks for your comments, and I agree with everyone on this important question. I also think that advertisers might get hurt by this as any emotional reaction that consumers have towards this type of intrusion might get shifted to the advertiser. Oh well, only time will tell.
Tammy, I can think of only one reason: If the ads subsidize your use of the phone so that the total cost of ownership decreases.
That doesn’t seem to be the case here, however.