The Mute Button: Same As It Ever Was

The stories about ad blocking and ineffective online ads are everywhere. Critics are shouting from the rooftops that privacy is getting compromised when you get served an ad of that Marriott property you were looking at the day before, or the latest deal from Comcast for a new customer Triple Play package because you checked out switching costs on their site.

There is no question consumers are looking for help, as recent analysis shows that over 180mm people have installed ad blockers globally. And recent news of technology providers (see Mozilla, Apple) embedding ad blocking software as a default service demonstrates the momentum in place.

All that said, I'm just not convinced it's fundamentally different from the past several decades, despite an explosion of technology options and reactions. Come with me on this journey over time:

• Television: when we didn't like what we saw, we changed the channels, from the program to the advertisements. The ultimate of customer control-- either you have my attention or you don't. The explosion of choices, TV channels, and cable fueled the options, and remote control technology made it even easier to ignore what you didn't like. Add in DVRs and your favorite shows could be recorded, and ads or boring content could easily be skipped.
• Radio: see television. Bad content, painful advertisements? Just switch the station. Preset buttons makes the switching easier.
• Newspapers: the printed versions land on the doorstep or are picked up when we're out and about. Pages were filled with advertisements, but we tuned them out by skipping over them, especially those pages and pages of retail ads during holiday times. Then media companies realized inserting circulars could make the messages "pop" -- and those circulars did pop, usually on the floor and frequently into the trash or recycling bin. Co-op dollars are wonderful, but if no one is flipping through them, that's wasted ad dollars due to the customer decision. That's the clearest signal of "muting" newspapers.
• As data became more available, beginning in the fundraising and travel categories, Direct Mail took off. Mail volume hit its peak of 104bb pieces of mail in 2001, according to the USPS. Why? It was targeted, testable, and in many situations extremely cost-effective and impactful from an ROI standpoint. When the term "Junk Mail" took hold, it was a simple way of saying " it's not relevant, it's not interesting, and I'm shutting it off." I remember presenting at conferences that consumers "open their mail over the garbage can" -- if it's relevant (a bill, something from a friend/family member, something of interest) I'll look at it; if not, it's junk.   And then the FTC gave more control to consumers with the Do Not Mail Registry-- put your name on it, and direct marketing firms/companies needed to scrub their files.
• Then phone numbers got more available and the direct marketing moved to calls when it made sense. Outbound telemarketing, while more expensive than mail, proved to be incredibly effective in certain categories for certain marketing moments. Again, incredibly easy to test, measure, and segment. Technology made number dialing easier, but reaching the consumer was critical for the success story, so calls began at dinner time or other moments when consumers would be home. The reaction? Answering machines, and then ultimately Caller ID technology, and then the Do Not Call Registry. When 20mm people sign up in the first few months, consumers are taking control.
• Email became more prevalent, so offers and messaging went out to a wider set of consumers. Early on, the frequency and quantity of emails were manageable. But now, over 205bb emails go out every day, and according to The Radicati Group, over 85% are spam. Email providers put in Junk Mail labeling options, and then began to search out common traits of junk mail and made it the default (like the GMail UI). While most emails from companies are deemed junk, the open rates for certain instances (like a monthly vehicle diagnostic report, or a bank notice) are by far and away the most effective of all channels (double digit, must-read material). Make it relevant, we'll open it-- if not, consider it muted.
• Which brings us back to the web. Targeting online ads worked early on, and as bandwidth increased, other formats like rich video, hover technology or page takeovers offered more options. As before, if it was relevant we consumed/clicked/engaged. If not, we ignored it. Video pre-roll ads? Well, you have your answer when consumers click the "skip this ad" icon aggressively and frequently.
• Social platforms? Targeted advertisements on Facebook, promoted tweets on Twitter, LinkedIn ads, Pinterest promoted pins, Snapchat sponsored stories and many more all head down the same path of using data and algorithms to try to match the appropriate message to the right person at the right time. If it's relevant, provides value and is timely, they will work. If not, they won't.
• Mobile? You know how taking a 30 second TV spot and slapping it on Facebook didn't work? Same thing surrounding an online banner jumping on your mobile screen. We're at the early stages of advertising and communicating on mobile devices, but the same pattern will undoubtedly play out.

So here we are. Over three billion people connected to the web, 62% of digital content being consumed on mobile devices, more ad blocker technology getting consumed, and new content options (VOD, Netflix, 8th generation game consoles, smart TV, streaming radio, etc) coming on-board every day.  And that means more "muting moments" for consumers.

So much has changed, but if you look back in time, it's "Same As It Ever Was."

What do you think?  Share your thoughts here or follow me on Twitter at @Glennengler.